I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue. So, playing Devil's Advoca

I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue. So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response: Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale. Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries. If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups. Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers. And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.