"Authorities want every house in America to be remodeled to include a second front door with a special government lock. They promise to only give police departments, contractors, and/or federal employees access to the single master key that can be instantly and easily copied and shared over the internet and opens every single house and business in America. Even if we trusted the government with this power, how could that go wrong?"

I think most Americans know that the government can quite easily enter anyone’s home if they want to.

Generally, not legally without a warrant, which can be a good enough deterrent. Or at least should be if our legal process is working at all.

You could say the same about a hypothetical encryption backdoor. The question is whether consumers should be allowed to use encryption the FBI can’t crack even with a warrant. I think the answer is “yes”, but…

Right, which is why the locked door is the wrong analogy.

It's more like burying treasure. The location is a secret map (key) that only you know. The critical distinction here, I believe, is between "having" and "knowing".

And I like to believe we have even stronger rights to what we know than to what we have.

All that said, this is assuming use of working cryptography. With the exception of the technically savvy (those who know how to hid things properly) asking for backdoors into encryption is akin to registering your treasure with the feds, something I'd assume gold miners wouldn't have put up with, for example.

If you are wealthy enough to own your own land, this can be true. If you rent you have very few rights.

I didn't do a good enough job with the analogy. The main problem I want to illustrate is that if the key falls into the wrong hands (which is extremely easy to do), then anyone else can easily enter anyone's home.

There are two main issues: government abusing its power, and weakening security of everybody. I meant to focus more on the second.

This exists and has long been required by fire code for most commercial buildings. https://www.knoxbox.com/fire-departments

I think there are different counters that will resonate for different people:

You can oppose banning/weakening encryption because you believe encryption is an irreplaceable tool for security.

You can oppose banning encryption because you believe that would actually be an ineffective tactic for preventing crime.

You can oppose banning encryption because you believe such bans violate inherent civil liberties.

There's another one that's really hard for me to explain -- You can oppose banning encryption because you've read Shannon or have a general sense of how RC4 worked and it feels just gross to ban basic operations, like shuffling information in a particular way. It's a bit like banning addition, or like banning pig latin.

I hear rebuttals and debates around the first three, but I don't think there's an effective rebuttal to the last one, which is just a paradigm shift. It's like, "I don't support this because I do not understand information the way you do."

Maybe we should print copies of "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" and leave them in hotel rooms, like the Gideons do with Bibles.

In part, we need a better lobby, or more lobbyists, who can break down what the real issues are and effectively explain those to Congress and the government.

Though, this reeks of the Executive branch making a scapegoat out of tech to distract from the gun industry, just like getting Walmart to pull game adverts and talking about "red flag" laws.

The EFF seems to do an ok job of lobbying but I don't think they do enough outreach to the general public.

The way that law enforcement frames the issue: "Encryption makes it harder to prevent crime by denying us access to data"

The correct framing: "Encryption maintains the status quo by denying law enforcement access to data that previously was not stored"

Just dig up old cold-war era movies and propaganda showcasing the Stasi and secret police, and preface it with "this, but on a computer.".

Unfortunately, the public response to this will be "Do you not support law enforcement, who risk their lives for our safety?" Sometimes it feels like we've elevated the common cop to a superhuman status.

And gun owners know the demonization of guns is bullshit. Perhaps we could find common cause against government - mandated disarmament instead of trying to shift the blame elsewhere?

"Only thuggish regimes and failed dictatorships demand for things like removal of encryption."

As John Oliver have said in his interview with Snowden - people care about their dick pics being seen by the Govt. Push that angle

No.

Why not?

Is it somehow morally reprehensible? Because it would be ineffective? Do you want the govt to see your dick pics?

I'm curious about about your flat out rejection of this proposal.

We can't expect layman and ordinary people to understand the real consequences and implications of the misinformation and misleading from government and corporations involved in surveillance.

We on HN and every one that really understand the matter will need to keep fight for ourselves and others.

But I believe trying to find a answer to your question a great exercise that contributes very much. I just don't have a good answer.

Maybe something like, they cant even keep our PII safe... what di you think will happened with our key

Maybe instead of calling it encryption, we should call it “privacy.“

Better yet, "protection from criminals" who will exploit any such circumventions.

I don’t know, has HN commenters solved demonization of outgroups?

You can’t explain it in one sentence, you have to explain cultures, subcultures, how each subculture interacts, etc.

It won’t matter anyway, it impacts the average person in the most indirect way imaginable.

Write a blog post about it, link to this discussion, post on social media, answer questions calmly and thoughtfully and without brushing off people?

Encryption used to be (still is?) classified as a munition, so maybe you could spin some 2nd amendment argument off of that.

Not all commenters "know" (agree with) that.

Not with PGP that's for sure ! :D