> It is possible to identify with the argument that everyone should have access to such an impenetrable lock. However, it’d be really hard to argue that widespread access to it wouldn’t create a radically new situation.
With regards to communication, we already have that impenetrable lock built in. I can say something incriminating to someone else in private, and the only way law enforcement will ever know what is if either party involved in the private conversation agrees to divulge it. Traditionally, the means for law enforcement to address this is to be part of the conversation.
In your example, law enforcement can force itself into the conversation in multiple ways (without compromising your counterpart), including listening devices or a break-in.
Most real-life analogies to encryption are not good enough. A smart layperson can easily spot issues with the “if crime happens in private, you shouldn't ban privacy” type of argument.
With regards to communication, we already have that impenetrable lock built in. I can say something incriminating to someone else in private, and the only way law enforcement will ever know what is if either party involved in the private conversation agrees to divulge it. Traditionally, the means for law enforcement to address this is to be part of the conversation.