I'm curious how many people think he understands the technology and just doesn't care if he's undermining security, or is he just clueless.
Of course he'd fling the same accusation at us, from his point of view. What if there was a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if only they'd have been allowed to see through the encryption? I mean, let's be honest, on its own merits, that's not the worst argument in the world.
It's just that as an old-school true-blooded American patriot, I can't help but notice that "just giving them all the powerz" is not the way we do things around here, and there are reasons for that.
(Before reflexively downvoting because I dared sound a bit patriotic, consider why I feel compelled to wrap myself in the flag here....)
What if he is the terrorist and wants to more readily spy on the American people? Or a similar, more likely scenario, of what if the government has a spy from another country? Do we want them to have all of our information in their hands? If encryption is weakened they can more easily spy on our political leaders.
What about national security? Lowering encryption standards hurts national security. As an American patriot why would you want to hurt national security? For a bit of promised security? The current mass surveillance has prevented 0 attacks. Who is to say more surveillance would prevent any attacks? You can say for certain it would hurt national security (bad guys can use backdoors too) - but you cannot say for certain it would prevent any attacks. So it's a "lose/maybe-win" scenario. Not one in the countries best interests, if you ask me.
E.g. why is terror getting this level of attention vs. child murder, which in terms of numbers of victims is a far bigger problem?
By the "what if" logic, these people ought to be prepared to go far in curtailing privacy to get at child abuse given the magnitude of the problem compared to terror.
We know how to profile the likely perpetrators very well too. The vast majority of such crimes are carried out by a few very specific groups of people, namely dads, brothers and other close male family members.
Surely if the - on average - few terror deaths are worth these types of sacrifices, the many hundred child murders and thousands upon thousands of abuse victims would justify far more extensive curtailment of privacy?
It quickly becomes very clear that the "what if" argument is rationalisation: if harm reduction was as important to them as they like to imply, they would not be spending their attention on terror.
What the "anti-terror crowd" need to be made to answer when they ask for more rights is what makes terrorism different, and why are they not spending their energy on the many problems that have far more serious effects.
You're right about it being close family members, but the rest of your profile is wrong.
The majority of child abusers are female: http://www.safehorizon.org/page/child-abuse-facts-56.html
Without going back and digging up the exact NSPCC survey, the article you in to appears to take into account a much wider set of criteria, though it's hard to say since it doesn't state its definition either and I couldn't find its source. The wording does also seem to imply that it is looking at reported cases as opposed to use a survey, which would give different numbers.
In terms of type of abuse you consider, it will drastically shift the balance. E.g. for sexual abuse the numbers are completely dominated by male family members. Once you add in violence it shifts a lot, and other neglect will likely shift it further if for no other reason than simply because women are still more likely to be the primary carer.
Of course in any case it doesn't alter the main point.
He's too focused on his narrative to be able to understand the web of unintended consequences of what he's proposing. The same way law enforcement and lawmakers fail to see all of the unintended consequences of the drug war.
He clearly knows what it means, what he's asking for and he knows it sounds bad when it's called a back door.
Saying it's "not a back door" is simply a lie, and I'm sure they or their advisors know it.
I find the idea that "the people behind implementing and pushing for these policies don't understand the obvious consequences" to be absurd. This push has been about power from the start.