You're right, I was a bit angry when I read this. It's rather hard not to get angry given the topic. I agree I could have phrased it more tactically. I underst

You're right, I was a bit angry when I read this. It's rather hard not to get angry given the topic. I agree I could have phrased it more tactically. I understood your point and I'm not trying to prolong the discussion. However, I consider the implication that my comment was entirely devoid of a point a bit unfair, so I'll try to rephrase. I think there is no good argument to be made for stripping away the privacy of citizens, with the implication that it's okay since they are somehow less important than businesses. The fact that this is now getting somewhat regularly proposed is scary and a danger to liberty. To me, Barr's statement reads as a long-winded way of saying "it's not too bad if we punch holes in your encryption because your systems weren't secure to begin with and you're also not that important since you are just consumers". My point was to call this out explicitly and try to invalidate it as an argument for breaking encryption.