None of what he said is correct and even if it was, it would be easier to destroy every piece of technology on earth than put collars around people to monitor what they do (According to his own idea of destruction, this is doubly true. He thinks destroying humanity can happen very easily so why can't it be easy to destroy devices?). I have trouble trusting this guy, and it's hard to resist calling him names. So I think I'm still going to argue that you cannot argue against encryption.