Maybe it does boast something else. I am genuinely unsure whether being able (after a judge orders it) to unlock encryption, similar to a front door, is a bad t

Maybe it does boast something else. I am genuinely unsure whether being able (after a judge orders it) to unlock encryption, similar to a front door, is a bad thing. I don't like it, it stinks, I'd hate to experiment with things like this and so I'd vote against it, but is it going to end up worse for the greater good? Can't we still just use proper/steganographic encryption when an authoritarian regime gains power, and until then is it better? I can't say that beyond reasonable doubt. That safer society can be argued to be a boast that makes up for it (I'm not saying it definitely is. I'm unsure. Very unsure). And for the other, anti-monopolistic market authorities, the "boast" is a level playing field.