IDK if it's rare that they make this case. It depends on what the are promoting or defending. Or rather, it's rare that anyone (including people against this w

IDK if it's rare that they make this case. It depends on what the are promoting or defending. Or rather, it's rare that anyone (including people against this war on encryption) makes a blunt argument that criminals will escape because the police are constrained. The blunt tradeoffs argument is from a classroom or bar. It's not the kind of argument that will be made (bluntly) in a legal, policy or legislative setting. In any case... I don't think "denied some powers" should be assessed against "risk of criminals escaping justice." One is abstract and the other concrete. The actual tradeoff is between criminals escaping and actual abuse of power by law enforcement. Some amount of both is guaranteed. This tips the scale.