My understanding is that the various anti-encryption proposals don't prevent the government itself from using encryption, just their subjects. So it's not really an "argument against" from the state's point of view. They will be safe.
Huh? It is a argument against government backdoor access to messages.
The government demonstrated that they are unqualified to keep data securely under their control. As such, any argument that a backdoor only allows the duly elected government access is empirically false. Any such backdoor empirically allows nefarious criminals access to your messages whereas the absence of a backdoor keeps your messages safely between you and the other party.
So, your options are:
1. Encryption with no backdoors so all messages are safe.
2. Criminals can freely read your messages so the government can more easily investigate potential criminals.
My understanding is that the various anti-encryption proposals don't prevent the government itself from using encryption, just their subjects. So it's not really an "argument against" from the state's point of view. They will be safe.
i don't get how it's an argument for encryption if that wasn't the affected part
This website posts a lot of nonsense.
It's a far right propaganda site masquerading as internet advocacy.
Far right? How do you back that belief? As I see it they're just wrong on a lot of stuff.
Huh? It is a argument against government backdoor access to messages.
The government demonstrated that they are unqualified to keep data securely under their control. As such, any argument that a backdoor only allows the duly elected government access is empirically false. Any such backdoor empirically allows nefarious criminals access to your messages whereas the absence of a backdoor keeps your messages safely between you and the other party.
So, your options are:
1. Encryption with no backdoors so all messages are safe.
2. Criminals can freely read your messages so the government can more easily investigate potential criminals.