Originally, you'd communicate by mail, but some people didn't write things out in plain language; they used coated messages.

That was why the government decided to ban mail, and since that didn't cover all cases, they also banned people handing things to each other.

At least, I think that is how I remember it going in an alternate world where physical laws mimiced electronic laws.

Yes, exactly that. Tons of crime is committed using only in-person communication. Should we all have microphones in our homes? Do detective work, flip sources, follow the money.

I believe that most of terrorism does happen because the people behind it have some goals, not for funsies; so trying to fight the causes would be one thing to do. Obviously, that's difficult for many reasons, and making life more shit for everyone else is cheap and easy, and hence preferred.

If you were sane, you would realise that restricting the right of billions of people to communicate privately, a right they have enjoyed for all the thousands of years of human history, is handing terrorists a complete and total victory far beyond any act of violence they could commit. The purpose of a government is not to prevent 100% of all crime and terrorism by locking every citizen in a straitjacket.

This also isn't even motivated by terrorists, but rather people daring to oppose the government.

So there was no terrorism or crime or trafficking or money laundering prior to encrypted comms?

> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.

It's not ordinary citizens' job to figure out solutions to these problems. Government has teams of intelligence agencies to answer these questions. Encrypted chat is fundamental infra that shouldn't be blocked.

Become a society where nobody feels it necessary to fall back on "terrorism" to get themselves properly heard.

> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.

Spending crazy amounts in public education, healthcare, and nuclear arsenal?