> what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys".

Which can only be done through spyware installed universally if encryption isn't going to be broken. Because that certainly isn't ripe for abuse..

Yes, it will be abused. As will the surveillance tech that I prefer as an alternative to crypto backdoors, on the grounds that (1) the crypto is far too important to permit backdoors, and (2) it won't be possible to stop boring everyday criminals from getting surveillance tech, let alone governments, and (3) crypto is knowledge that's already out of the bag, so sufficiently motivated bad guys can still have it without backdoors even if everyone else's crypto is broken.

That's why I can only see a plausible outcome involving radical reductions in penalties for basically everything.

>Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle

There is no balanced middle with encryption. Things are either encrypted or their not.

"Encrypted but a third party has access" or "Encrypted, but with breakable encryption" is as good as non encrypted.

> But society is all about balancing the good and the bad.

Yes, but the "bad" tends to become "good", as the members of the society becomes weaker and weaker.