> Of course it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they had full-text search access to all conversations and content, worldwide.
That’s what the govs always try to imply. The reality is, the minimally sophisticated “bad guys” will still use encrypted means and now we can imagine who’s really affected by this condemnation.
Right or wrong is relative. Sure for you encryption by itself is not wrong, but not for Interpol. The same argument is used by Interpol, encryption cause harm for society, at least from their perspective.
Banning direct wrongs are done because the thing being banned is wrong. The effectiveness of the ban doesn't matter (unless maybe one can show that banning the wrong actually increases the rate at it happens, but that is different from failing to significantly enough decrease the rate).
Indirect wrongs are things that aren't wrong but which we ban in order to stop something that is wrong. If there is no effect banning it, then it isn't justified to have a ban. If I want to ban cheese to reduce murder, is it justified? No, because banning cheese will no effect on the murder rate.
That’s what the govs always try to imply. The reality is, the minimally sophisticated “bad guys” will still use encrypted means and now we can imagine who’s really affected by this condemnation.