it starts to sound like providing fully encrypted solution (where provider just isn't able to cooperate because of no access to plain text) makes the provider de-facto accessory to whatever crime may be committed by perpetrators who used the solution while committing the crime. Basically fully encrypted solution (incl. without government backdoor) moves into the same category as assault gun, ie. something that regular good citizens supposedly just don't have legitimate uses for.

If a gmail user sends a plain text email to a lavabit user or vice versa, do they consider that scenario to be "fully encrypted". Or do both recipient and sender have to be lavabit users?