Child predator gets caught. Authorities tell child predator that the best way to minimize the number of years he spends in prison is to tell them what other pre

Child predator gets caught. Authorities tell child predator that the best way to minimize the number of years he spends in prison is to tell them what other predators he has been in contact with. Child predator gives them the information. Sure, this is an imagined case, just as yours is. Is it any less plausible? I don't think so. And so we have two plausible imagined cases that give opposite answers to how useful banning encryption would actually be to law enforcement. In other words, imagined cases are of no help whatsoever in actually evaluating this issue. What we, as members of the public (or for that matter concerned parents, for those who are), need in order to evaluate whether we should agree to banning encryption is open and transparent data on how well law enforcement does this job with vs. without encryption. Also data on how many child predators and other nefarious actors actually use encryption, given that it is easily available now. Child predators existed before encryption was available on consumer devices, and indeed before the Internet itself existed, so there should be plenty of historical data to use. Has anyone done such an analysis?