I think it's an important distinction. The crime is in how it's used, not in the technology itself. Banning the tech outright only affects actors who are will

I think it's an important distinction. The crime is in how it's used, not in the technology itself. Banning the tech outright only affects actors who are willing to follow the law. So banning this tool would mostly limit white hats. The same principle applies to gun rights for example. The gun itself isn't the problem, it's how someone chooses to use it. (self defense vs crime). Nobody is an absolutist here, everyone draws the line somewhere slightly different. Outlawing the tech ensures that good guys lose the arms race every time. When I say good guys I don't necessarily mean the government. I mean anyone out there who is not using the tech for malicious intent. People using guns for self defense, breaking into an encrypted device to solve a crime, or retrieve lost work etc. This keeps the focus on improving the actual technology (encryption). Rather than just banning law abiding citizens from taking part.