> And that’s what law enforcement often asks for: Give us access without making it any less secure.
No, I don't buy that. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I'm gonna say this is almost certainly a strawman caricature of what they're being asked, not what they're actually being asked. Law enforcement isn't stupid and people (especially law enforcement) understand that pretty much nothing in this world works in absolutes. They probably don't think the decrease in security is significant, but everyone (heck, even a kid) understands that the more people have access to something, the less secure it is.
No, I don't buy that. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I'm gonna say this is almost certainly a strawman caricature of what they're being asked, not what they're actually being asked. Law enforcement isn't stupid and people (especially law enforcement) understand that pretty much nothing in this world works in absolutes. They probably don't think the decrease in security is significant, but everyone (heck, even a kid) understands that the more people have access to something, the less secure it is.