I have seen plenty of comments by engineers here containing wildly incorrect statements about nuclear power. In general engineers seem to overestimate their own competence in areas outside their immediate professional experience.

> As an engineer, I'm in a better position to understand what the f is going on regarding encryption and, say, nuclear power than most people.

Yes, you are an engineer and understand the implementation details and potential side effects, but what about the opposing viewpoints like those from law enforcement? Are you an expert in law enforcement? Your viewpoints should trump theirs why exactly? You really don't think that it's possible that you can't see the forest for the trees?

Do nuclear scientists define nuclear energy policies or do they provide advice to those that define them?

> World. Not country.

I don't think we have a world government that will make regulations in regards to facebook.

> but what about the opposing viewpoints like those from law enforcement?

You're right, I may be ignorant of the issues that support the need for weakening encryption, but the fact is that I can evaluate the other side of the equation. And if the side pushing against encryption is making terrible arguments, I can see how terrible they objectively are.

> Do nuclear scientists define nuclear energy policies or do they provide advice to those that define them?

Similar thing: the arguments against nuclear power are idiotic and typically plain wrong and based on irrational appeals to fear.

Just like the previous issue, if a decision has to be made, it has to balance the pros and cons. Even if I can only properly evaluate only one side of the equation and find it lacking, I can certainly have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of the choice presented. And that's one side more than most people can grasp.