The usual arrant nonsense to anyone that understands the technology. Unfortunately those who do understand represent less than 0.01% of the electorate and no matter how much we argue against these assertions and proposed legislation we have no actual leverage or public visibility. Of course anyone who argues the case for encryption is immediately suspect (at least a spy, terrorist or paedophile). To show that strong encryption is a real world necessity it would be necessary to have a practical demonstration of what could happen without it, in a way that can be understood by the electorate. I suspect balls of steel, imagination and sheer chutzpah will be a necessary prerequisite for this approach to be successful though.