This is becoming a super long thread now but I want to say I understand your points, that's why this is difficult to discuss. What I see is that if evidence co

This is becoming a super long thread now but I want to say I understand your points, that's why this is difficult to discuss. What I see is that if evidence collection becomes seriously hampered because of strong encryption, then hacking, backdoors and surveillance will have to go up to compensate, and that's not a good situation either. If there comes a point where a large percentage of pedophiles, 'common criminals' and others can't get convicted because of default encryption (the evidence is on their phones), then the FBI and police will move to other methods, like the aforementioned ones. Because of this, I'm not sure your last point holds: > But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe we just haven't seen the actual consequences yet. Unless the FBI and the police are lying, then it will get worse as time goes on. Here's a quote by Comey http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/32698131/fbi-chief-calls-for-national-talk-over-encryption-vs-safety http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/32698131/fbi-chief-calls-for-... > Speaking Friday at the American Bar Association annual conference in San Francisco, James Comey said the agency was unable to access 650 of 5,000 electronic devices investigators attempted to search over the last 10 months. Barring some bigger discussion about government power altogether, this seems to be the issue we are facing. I also want to say that it's not just about conviction and putting someone in jail. Sure in a lot of these cases, there will be other evidence and other things to nail them on, but it's also about revealing the full scope of a crime and not just a harsher crime. In the name of justice so to speak.