All the other arguments aside, this one is I think often repeated but I have never seen a single shred of evidence for it. >"These ‘solutions’ also ignore the

All the other arguments aside, this one is I think often repeated but I have never seen a single shred of evidence for it. >"These ‘solutions’ also ignore the reality that the ‘bad guys’ will just use other tools to communicate; information is information. That will leave law abiding people giving up their privacy and security for little societal gain." Bad guys are often enough astonishingly stupid, and even smart people have horrible security practices on the regular. There's no indication to think that huge crime rings would not leak enough information if encryption is systematically undermined to give law enforcement significant leverage. And even if you take at face values that the bad guys start to evade measures, that has big drawbacks itself. One case that came to mind was the bust of an international crime syndicate by US and Australian intelligence because they supplied the literal app that the syndicate thought was anonymous. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/08/fbi-app-arrests-australia-crime/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/08/fbi-app-arre...). If you drive criminals into a sort of underground ecosystem that by itself can be very powerful because you're effectively funneling them into a pool. Centralized law enforcement and intelligence with the talent and tech it has available almost certainly stands to benefit from having access to communications in terms of effectively attacking crime. And when someone ignores this to support their argument it always makes me think less of the whole debate because that's just an indication that you're trying to deflect from the thing a lot of people will be persuaded by.