If I accept that my thought processes are fallacious in nature, would you explain clearly and logically? David is not proposing a weakening of encryption even if the government is, so I still don’t quite understand your position. Is it absolutist in the sense that under *no* circumstances should the government be given any means by which to circumvent/break current and future forms of encryption? Stated another way, is there no scenario in which their access can be allowed but limited in order to reach an immediate, justified, and (on balance) beneficial goal? Is your belief utilitarian in the sense that no amount of good that results from such government access in the near or mid-term can exceed the damage that will be caused in the longer term?
I’m sincerely trying to illuminate various facets of the argument.