Replacing criminals and state overreach with foreign adversaries may be more salient.
Our encryption debate came of age after the Cold War. The boogeymen of that era have been surpassed. We have new ones, and they're more sinister than thieves and more tangible than a your government turning on you.
For you and me, certainly. For the members of Congress you need to convince of this? They ARE the state. Outside of a few ideological libertarians, protecting the people from the state is not on their agenda.
We agree in a limited sense. (There are lots of politicians who genuinely believe in curtailing state power.)
Arguments about state overreach won’t convince a power-hungry vote chaser. Talk about foreign adversaries will.
Or if you're in the US, depending on your audience, Donald Trump or Joe Biden.
I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government, rather than ghosts with foreign names.
One of them is invading its neighbor.
> I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government
That's fine and these are things to worry about. But if the argument wants staying power, it needs to be adaptable.
Take your pick, it isn't like there's a shortage!