I was generally thinking about the things Glenn Greenwald describes in his book, [No Place to Hide](http://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance-ebo...). For example, even though Greenwald is a respect journalist and regular contributor to the Guardian, when the Snowden scandal first broke, the NYT insisted on referring to him only as a 'blogger.' They also published a lot of op-eds bashing Greenwald's work as dangerous and non-journalistic.

Sorry, I don't have any better links or sources right now. I'm on mobile.

It's their job to properly research it before writing about it.

No, I didn't miss it. I'll admit that the article isn't directly calling for an end to encryption, but, at least the way I read it, there's some subtext about it. It seems like they're approaching encryption with the assumption that it's bad but we can't do anything about it, not that encryption is a good tool being used for evil.

> A trickier issue is presented by the encryption deployed by Apple, Facebook, Google and a range of smaller services that thwart law enforcement’s ability to access a target’s communications, even with a court order.

Why do they describe it as 'thrwarting' law enforcement? It's not thrwarting anything, it's just not providing them a back door.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this article feels like it has something between the lines.