Framing it as "the encryption debate" instead of "the eavesdropping debate" is telling, in terms of the inherent bias in the article. The free ride enjoyed by

Framing it as "the encryption debate" instead of "the eavesdropping debate" is telling, in terms of the inherent bias in the article. The free ride enjoyed by law enforcers in terms of solving crimes by following the money and listening to unguarded communications may be coming to an end, thanks to cryptography. But end-to-end encryption by default isn't going to do anything but raise the lowest-hanging fruit a bit higher. Stupid criminals will still be easily caught, because they cannot avoid doing stupid things. And no one has perfect op-sec. Everyone makes mistakes, and mistakes lead to convictions. The difference is that police resources will have to be prioritized and targeted to uncover those mistakes, rather than continually picking up cheap finds from a surveillance dragnet. This is no longer a matter for debate, at least in the US. We already went over this with Clipper Chip, and rehashed it several times. Encryption is protected by the 1st Amendment. Back doors can be used by adversaries in addition to law enforcers. Law enforcers cannot be trusted to use their granted powers responsibly. Indeed, encryption has advanced this far in part because governments cannot be trusted.