That's a common gun rights argument -- "If guns are illegal only criminals will have guns". How controversial could it be?
I don’t think anyone believes they can ban it, but like tax evasion it’s probably going to be a nice excuse they can use to catch the people they don’t like that do use it. For the rest of us, don’t worry—they’ll make sure you’re always safe and no criminals would exploit your unencrypted communications, and surely no one with access to the means of encryption would exploit it!
yeah like waterboarding is a tool around "blocks" of calling it torture
It’s not that you can only own a shotgun that has been modified so it can kill only ducks and not police officers. Everyone understand that you can’t modify a weapon like that.
Crypto is a little different because the need is bigger. This means looser restrictions, to the point where having laws against using it makes no sense.
But yes, it is similar. Distribution is so widespread that illigalization doesn't affect those who don't follow the law.
I agree that UX for secure encryption is more of an open problem.
A system that handle sending messages when one party is off-line. A system that doesn't require up-front key agreement between all parties. A system that handles moving devices somewhat gracefully. A system that gives decent guarantees on the identity of your counter party, without being very onerous.
Making a system that meets the above requirements and others I missed, and that remains as usable as if the encryption weren't there is hard.
Illegalizing encryption this way just makes it easier for the government and protected parties to commit crime, just the same with illegalizing guns.