> How long until you'd need to revert the law, because all legal traffic is now exploitable, while the criminals are still using good crypto?

That's a common gun rights argument -- "If guns are illegal only criminals will have guns". How controversial could it be?

Guns are controversial because they kill things and are thus a weapon. Encryption cannot kill anyone, if anything it is a shield. It’s also an infinitely replicable shield, and one that is omnipresent.

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!

This is it. They don't intend to stop use of encryption, but it does give them probable cause to investigate or arrest you if you are caught using encryption. It's a tool of law enforcement to get around "blocks" like needing a warrant, etc.

> It's a tool of law enforcement to get around "blocks"

yeah like waterboarding is a tool around "blocks" of calling it torture

I don’t need guns in the modern world, but they are not illegal, just restricted. In most countries you can legally own guns, shotguns and rifles.

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.

Encryption is a very easy copy paste of programs and Is free, guns are a complex physical device that cost money and must be manufactured elsewhere and distributed to sellers. There's a significant level in effective ability to use them.

But yes, it is similar. Distribution is so widespread that illigalization doesn't affect those who don't follow the law.

Encryption is actually incredibly hard. This is why it took whatsapp and other apps centrally doing it, and coordinating it between devices, to make end-to-end encryption commonly used.

Using established methods is not difficult, though making a good crypto to begin with absolutely is.

The difficulty is using the established methods to build out a whole system that is workable in realistic conditions.

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.

UX is hard, not encryption.

Encryption is also hard but there are many open source solutions available.

I agree that UX for secure encryption is more of an open problem.

Both are appropriate. The state can be criminal or do criminal actions, and often is and does.

Illegalizing encryption this way just makes it easier for the government and protected parties to commit crime, just the same with illegalizing guns.