> This is about guiding principles, about personal liberty, and about freedom from tyranny.

The point he’s trying to make, as I understand it, is that states adapt. They don’t just throw up their hands and say “guess we can’t do anything about that encrypted traffic.”

The response to distributed kinetic kill capability in the US, for example, is for police to become more militarized and treat every encounter as a potentially lethal one.

> There's private, and there's not private. There is nothing in between

It’s not an argument about privacy per se, it’s highlighting that the stronger the protections against state surveillance and intervention, the stronger the state becomes. By taking an absolutionist stance, we push our institutions to towards the same in response.

I’m not making an argument or against encryption or privacy, just pointing out the systemic effects.