Would you consider any crime which the settlement is in the hundreds of millions "petty"? If not, then http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/sanction

Would you consider any crime which the settlement is in the hundreds of millions "petty"? If not, then http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/sanctions-spoofers-bits-and-gold http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-05/sanctions-s... is a counter-example. See also http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/shh-credit-agricole-kept-its-sudan-business-quiet http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/shh-credit-..., http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-18/bny-mellon-had-some-very-special-interns http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-18/bny-mellon-... and http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/accidental-payments-and-quiz-cheating http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-20/accidental-... Clearly neither being really smart nor having a lot at stake will prevent someone from sending sensitive things over email. As for terrorists, a short search turns up https://books.google.com/books?id=VqY4Wr3T5K4C&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=terrorists+using+unencrypted+communications&source=bl&ots=Qg8l6CiIzv&sig=TXeeEvf24M3H4hRyX41qfT10j-M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIp5aiu4yYyQIVSDk-Ch0jNgwb#v=onepage&q=terrorists%20using%20unencrypted%20communications&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=VqY4Wr3T5K4C&pg=PA410&lpg=.... I think if you claim that major criminals' encryption usage would be unaffected by making it difficult to use, you need to support that at least as well as I've just argued for the opposite.