Your comment is made in bad faith. Notably, you posted from a brand new account echoing the most inflammatory talking points that the government uses in support

Your comment is made in bad faith. Notably, you posted from a brand new account echoing the most inflammatory talking points that the government uses in support of eroding encryption. Either this is some blatant (and bad) astroturfing, or you've drunk the kool-aid from the government. Nobody is here to defend child pornography or terrorism. But even accepting that they exist, those are a drop in the literal ocean of use cases for encryption relative to the overwhelmingly legal and productive and often necessary uses. > They should come up with a useful alternative We have a useful alternative - criminal laws. Make the criminal penalty a strong enough deterrent and you'll stop everyone except the most craven malfeasors (and those people will find ways to continue to disseminate their materials irrespective of encryption status). Rather than accuse privacy supporters of being "stubborn", you should come up with a legitimate argument why ordinary, law abiding people should have to sacrifice their autonomy in service of an effectively phantom boogeyman.