If you really want to converse with governments then it helps to steelman their position before arguing it. Bear in mind I am against weakening cryptography when reading this:

I am a government. 20% of my population are tech savvy, a different very minorly overlapping 20% are criminals. Given the law of distributions this is probably pretty close to true.

Now, those 20% of criminals are very varied in their delights, violent, sexual or theft. Serious crime such as pedophilia or terrorism is very low probability overall.

However, as a government, I can't be seen to be weak on those extreme positions because they are highly visible; the 80% population simply will not allow me to argue in good faith for protections which _might_ help such extreme criminals operate easier.

The technical feasibility of good opsec for criminals is usually very low, and the FBI has a decent track record of targeted surveillance.

But I, the politician, cannot communicate effectively with 80% of people, when the populist says that I am weak on terrorists and pedophiles. I only weaken my own position and allow the populist access to power, because 80% > 20%.

--

The biggest benefit and the biggest problem with democracy is that everyone has a voice, even the uninformed.

If you listen to all politicans by numbers there will be liars and opportunists among them; then you're not uninformed, you're misinformed, and that's arguably worse.