> Why are you assuming that policing is a video game where difficulty needs to be balanced? But that's their argument. "Give up your rights because policing is

> Why are you assuming that policing is a video game where difficulty needs to be balanced? But that's their argument. "Give up your rights because policing is getting harder", while staying quiet when policing gets easier. If policing, on the whole, isn't actually getting harder, their argument is invalid. Look at your own example. Despite encryption, the police would still get a graph of connections (even without knowing the message contents), and since surveillance is so massively easier now, they could: 1) Monitor everyone involved, leading them to incriminating locations (surveillance cameras, drones, tracking devices, hidden microphones, facial recognition applied to pictures people post publicly...) 2) Plant targeted (as opposed to population-wide) backdoors on their devices, circumventing encryption 3) Watch them enter passwords on their devices with telescopic lenses What you call a brick wall is barely a wet paper bag. We should not have to give up our rights and allow mass surveillance of all communication just because police are unwilling to use the targeted tools.