Encryption isn’t like using a mask - we can still see who is communicating with who, we just can’t see what they’re saying. Banning encryption is like banning envelopes.
Ah, but the government already has a backdoor to envelopes, because they can get a warrant to open the envelopes. This analogy only strengthens their position.
Not really. Because strong encryption is like having everything in envelopes only you can open, and weak encryption is like everything passing without an envelope, because you don't know who has compromised the keys (and just like it traveling without an envelope, you have no idea who is seeing and meddling with it).
There is no "only the government can remove the envelope, if they get permission". If we had the capability for that, we wouldn't be having the argument; the problem is people think this exists and it's technical company intransigence that is preventing it from being used.
> There is no "only the government can remove the envelope, if they get permission".
Okay, but now the case you're trying to explain is "there are deep technological challenges and a wealth of historical precedent make me skeptical that we can correctly design or implement a solution that allows only the government or the intended recipient to decrypt the message, instead of only the intended recipient".
To people who think "technology is magic".
And on the other side of the PR battle, the government is saying "Nah, we got this. And if you try and stop us, we're powerless against pedophiles and terrorists."
Adding enough nuance to make your position technically accurate, also makes it abstract enough to be politically useless.