Honestly, if the police get into my house because of another way, I think that counts as 'defeating my lock'. Indeed, the fact that police can blow a hole in my

Honestly, if the police get into my house because of another way, I think that counts as 'defeating my lock'. Indeed, the fact that police can blow a hole in my wall is part of why I say they can defeat the lock. Change the analogy to a safe. No matter how good the safe, if police want, they can read the contents of the documents in my safe. The same can not be said for contents of encrypted documents. Now, it might be possible for the police to persecute someone without access to those documents. Certainly, I am not arguing 'the police need this access because they used to have it'. All I am arguing is that encryption came with a meaningful change in what law enforcement can and cannot access without cooperation. Claiming that we don't even need to consider the question because nothing meaningful changed is wrong. I don't believe we need to make that claim to argue against banning e2e encryption though.