It may not be explicitly proposed, but I'd wager it's still implicitly there. Definitely for army/police, but probably for ruling class as well.

So, again, a mistake. Understand the fight you are in.

Understanding the fight you're in is definitely key. I don't know enough about the Australian people, but I know that reframing the situation in a way where another privilege is taken away from the common folk, but will still be there for the ruling class -- this would motivate a lot of people to rally against the proposal where I live.

In addition, in the age of Trump & co, it should be clear to everyone that facts don't matter. I mean we have the PM himself saying here that math doesn't work in Australia. It's completely possible to reframe the whole discussion in a myriad of ways that aren't based in reality. Use fake news & propaganda to move the needle in favor of encryption. One could argue that this undermines the greater goal of having a fact respecting society, but it's irrational to claim that such tactics won't work for achieving narrower goals like saving encryption.

He didn't say that.

He said math can't prevent you from being charged with an offence; math can't bestow upon you protection from the law; math can't grant you a legal privilege.

It wouldn't grant you anything you would become a criminal if you use the certain math regardless of the motives. Why don't we prohibit certain kind of music as well (let's say hard rock since terrorists might listen to it), and french baguettes and humus because they might eat those, etc.

What certain math usage would cause criminality?

You would become a criminal if you used certain kinds of music and baguettes regardless of motives?

I don't get the connection.

I really, really don't know what to say to this. Read the thread.

[As a model, firearms restrictions in the US nearly always lift restrictions for current or retired law enforcement officers and military]