1) It's a tough sell to Average Joe. Average Joe wants it both ways - he wants Liberty AND to be protected from bad guys. Obama etc. were effectively hired to protect Average Joe from the bad guys. If Obama were to say "Sorry guys, we can't protect you in the name of Liberty", he's going to be eviscerated.
2) Agreed completely that banning encryption is foolish. I think what they really want is NSA-style backdoors - "encryption for everyone except us." And of course I see the concern with that.
> Average Joe wants it both ways - he wants Liberty AND to be protected from bad guys.
If Average Joe "wants Liberty AND to be protected from bad guys" then he doesn't have both if he doesn't have Liberty.
The only way you can have Liberty and Security is if you don't sacrifice one for the other. The need for the sacrifice is the lie. There is no reason you can't have both, because sacrificing liberty is not necessary for security.
In reality the opposite is the case. "Those who give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither and lose both." Liberty and privacy are essential components of security. You're not secure if the bad guys can compromise your entire infrastructure just by infiltrating the police or police computers (to say nothing of the security risk from corrupt government officials). Creating intentional security vulnerabilities in order to facilitate government spying does not bring about a security improvement. It's based on the premise is that we need to reduce security in order to be secure, which is preposterous and untrue.
Rights are frequently unpopular with the Average Joe. There are often majorities for the abrogation of rights for the minority side. That is why a Bill of Rights, and a government of divided powers.
If the Average Joe doesn't like it, well, then it's the President job to explain the relationship between encryption and rights like free speech, presumed innocence, and security from search without a warrant. Not to go looking for ways to abrogate those rights to satisfy the Average Joe.
My thoughts based on it:
1) It's a tough sell to Average Joe. Average Joe wants it both ways - he wants Liberty AND to be protected from bad guys. Obama etc. were effectively hired to protect Average Joe from the bad guys. If Obama were to say "Sorry guys, we can't protect you in the name of Liberty", he's going to be eviscerated.
2) Agreed completely that banning encryption is foolish. I think what they really want is NSA-style backdoors - "encryption for everyone except us." And of course I see the concern with that.