So this does actually pose an interesting conundrum, I think. Setting aside the specifics of this matter, I think that most people would accept that in some ci

So this does actually pose an interesting conundrum, I think. Setting aside the specifics of this matter, I think that most people would accept that in some circumstances, covert surveillance of suspected criminals is an acceptable law enforcement tool. Of course, it must be subject to suitable (not rubber-stamped) judicial approval, rigorous guidelines, limitations etc. From that perspective, secure and encrypted communication channels that are now becoming more generally available and usable by the public reduce the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence using traditional surveillance tools. It's no wonder that they would react negatively to them, even assuming there were no malicious intentions. I wonder what the balance will be? Does law enforcement have to simply accept that surveillance of this sort will no longer be possible? I can't see any logical way of simultaneously retaining useful control and allowing regulated legal access to communications.