A valid point, that certainly happens in a lot of cases. However, I think the main thrust of the open letter is more of a "protecting sources" concern rather th

A valid point, that certainly happens in a lot of cases. However, I think the main thrust of the open letter is more of a "protecting sources" concern rather than a "preserving the footage from being seized/destroyed" one. In that view encrypted camera -> authorities cant get in -> they just smash it instead is a beneficial outcome.