The state won't blanket ban encryption because it's useful to the operation of companies. The way I see it going down is by asking these questions: Who will ha

The state won't blanket ban encryption because it's useful to the operation of companies. The way I see it going down is by asking these questions: Who will have access to encryption (the privilege of security)? and Who gets to decide who has access to encryption? The state can take away voting rights, gun rights, right to movement, right to serve on a jury, right to public benefits, and the right to parental benefits. Why shouldn't the state also assume it has the ability to decide who has access to the right of security through encryption? If actual momentum builds toward reducing encryption access, expect to see ex-felons being forbade security. Who will object?