The most interesting part of this debate is how it mirrors the gun control debate, with the biggest difference between the two being the people advocating each

The most interesting part of this debate is how it mirrors the gun control debate, with the biggest difference between the two being the people advocating each position. Both debates are about the attempt to restrict something which is very difficult to restrict. In both cases,there is a fundamental principle of liberty at stake, but only the advocates for that liberty appear to care about that principle. Relatively few could be argued to be harmed by the weapons/encryption (in the manner which proponents of restriction believe they can prevent), and even where governments have abridged those rights, the results do not clearly demonstrate that restrictions are efficacious. Proponents also make their strongest pushes for increased restriction in the face of great tragedies in both cases. The only groups which seem to have consistent positions through these two debates are the libertarians, anarchists, and statists (; a strange list in my opinion).