If (almost) everyone who is not a terrorist were to give up encryption, then it would be much easier to track down/narrow down the terrorists if they keep using it, no?
The government would just have the private keys so they could decrypt traffic easily.
Someone posted a photo of master keys and Internet was, as usual, the Internet.
...Unless you're intercepting and sniffing everything that's unencrypted. Then we're back to square one.
There is no truth being asserted in the premise causing the conclusion to be true. It's fairly clear that it was a statement from an original source, that source being trustworthy is where we would find (or not find) the information which would show the conclusion to be true, not the premise of the 'fantasy.'
"$noun did $verb which resulted in $result and $result is $something interest which begs the question $question."
And terrorists would be smart - they'd employ non-backdoored encryption, hide that in "legit" communications, and encrypt that with the proper back-doored government encryption. They'd appear to be a totally normal snapchat user, or whatever.
If we actually meant to give up all encryption, card-kiddies would destroy civilization in three weeks.
Yes, measured data and unmarked compressed data have this same property, as do actual random data. But is does not look like 9 nines of false positive rate are a concern to those people.
If you include stenography, yes, it's certainly not easily recognizable. I don't think good stenography can be recognized at all, but that's not my area and I've got people contradict me at this (without further info), thus I'm not sure.