Seems to me we're going to have to let the anti-encryption mob have their way until things go wrong—bigtime. No amount of expert advice will convince them until they witness firsthand the negative consequences of weakening encryption.

It's only afterwards and as a consequence some highly newsworthy disasters occur such as a child abduction or political sex scandal involving a high profile politician come to light that the lay public will get the message that weak encryption is effectively no encryption.

In the meantime criminals will be early adopters of more sophisticated messaging such as steganography.

Would be nice, but you know they'll carve out exceptions for themselves or use "unauthorized" messaging channels regardless with no consequences. It is _always_ "rules for thee, not for me" with politicians.

Fight and kill the oppressors instead of letting them oppress, don’t just hope that they’ll decide to call it quits by themselves.

> until they witness firsthand the negative consequences of weakening encryption.

They won't be affected.

The hitherto invisible but very real wall between social classes is just going to become more visible for "First World" civilians the way it's been in "lesser" countries for decades already.

Actual "criminals" have always been able to get around all the restrictions ever put in place since the dawn of civilization, it's just the common folk that get trodded on and kept in their place.

> Seems to me we're going to have to let the anti-encryption mob have their way until things go wrong—bigtime.

Been there, seen that. That's how Pakistan got nuclear bomb. France was just making friends.

In most cases I think the revelation of a scandal involving a high-profile politician would be a good thing. (That is, better than it remaining secret.)