I don't believe that. I'm simply saying that if the stated logic for this bill is that we need to regulate encryption because there is an unacceptable risk of m

I don't believe that. I'm simply saying that if the stated logic for this bill is that we need to regulate encryption because there is an unacceptable risk of misuse, then my response is that I actually accept the current level of misuse risk given the current level of regulation. Instituting further controls in the form of regulation would cost us more than the perceived reduction of risk that it affords. Obviously this bill is about more than that, but I think that statement pretty much torpedoes their main public argument.