Well yes, if you're not using encryption and it's a one off thing, the judge will probably find you not guilty.
The OP seemed to suggest that when you ban encryption, random people will randomly get in trouble, therefore banning encryption is a bad idea.
But judges have common sense and law enforcement has limited resources (prioritization) therefore random people will probably not randomly get in trouble. Therefore strong encryption ban is very realistic and very easy to sell to the population, and not like the OP claimed something that will backfire. This is why his comment is naive. He likes encryption and doesn't want for it to be banned therefore he deludes himself with some alternative reality where doing something he doesn't like backfires and is reversed.
Well no, judges do not have common sense. They are either extremely obtuse or corrupt. Worst case, they will make up their mind early on and refuse to budge.
Sometimes they are too old to even comprehend the technology.
Judges are always on the side of law enforcement, and whomever can purchase the more reputable legal firm. Judges have favorites, and biases.
Laws like this will immediately backfire. It won't hurt politicians initially. They get immunity. But it will allow the party in charge to cement their position through illicit use of encryption.
No encryption allowed for the opposing party! But us...
Extremely late edit : I would also point out that "random people" are easier to arrest than actual career criminals. Police here are extremely lazy and usually only go for the low hanging fruit. Some of these cases do get thrown out. But not all of them.
Did the other anti privacy laws and customs backfire? Did big tech which is in bed with the goverment censoring you while the goverment pretends you have your 1st ammendment rights backfire? Did mass metadata collection backfire? Did KYC backfire? Did banning open wifi networks backfire? Did banning face coverings in public backfire? Did indefinite contempt for refusing encryption keys backfire? Did Patriot Act backfire? Did judges signing every warrant without reading backfire? Did that FBI raid on anonymous vault storage for people, where they admitted to laying on the warrant backfire? Did civil asset forfeiture backfire?
Will the soon introduced kybc (know your business customer) forcing hosting and cloud providers to identify their customers before allowing them a Vps backfire?
My country does not have free speech. It has some of the most stringent copy right laws in the world. It also has defamation laws that have been used to suppress truthful reports.
Police are allowed to hold you indefinitely with no justification. (Technically they are limited to 30days) They are allowed, and constantly refuse to allow you access to a legal representative.
They are allowed to force you to confess to a crime you never committed.
Politicians get away with corruption, and secure votes through the use of cults.
I know what it looks like when the current dominating party was created by a literal Class A Warcriminal from WW2.
These anti- encryption laws make life even worse. The last thing we have here is a semblance of privacy.
I do not want, or need 1st world countries such as Britain or Spain to give an example for my government to follow.
The OP seemed to suggest that when you ban encryption, random people will randomly get in trouble, therefore banning encryption is a bad idea. But judges have common sense and law enforcement has limited resources (prioritization) therefore random people will probably not randomly get in trouble. Therefore strong encryption ban is very realistic and very easy to sell to the population, and not like the OP claimed something that will backfire. This is why his comment is naive. He likes encryption and doesn't want for it to be banned therefore he deludes himself with some alternative reality where doing something he doesn't like backfires and is reversed.
Strong encryption ban will not backfire.