The scenario you describe would be good overall. State actors can easily metastasize into bad actors themselves, and when they do the results are truly monstrou

The scenario you describe would be good overall. State actors can easily metastasize into bad actors themselves, and when they do the results are truly monstrous. Having a way to organize dissidence (in this case, the possibility to communicate without being immediately captured) is of prime importance as a safety valve when things inevitably turn for the worse. Other bad actors seem benign in comparison. A fundamentalist organization can clock up hundreds or thousands of kills but a bad state actor is usually along the lines of millions of lives negatively affected. There's also no indication that bad actors need encryption at all. In several of the recent terrorist attacks, in some cases information was easily retrievable but was not investigated due to an overwhelming amount of people to monitor. It seems like states have no issues collecting data but sometimes struggle to actually use it to stop terrorism.