Who advises these people??
Once again we're hearing a securocrat confidently uttering some portentous, fine-sounding stuff with an authoritative and knowledgeable demeanour ... only to discover that he's talking shyte, because the evidence, facts, rationale and logic make no sense whatever.
Now, ok: we long since stopped expecting much in the way of coherent, informed, detail-level statements from *-crats of any kind, and we know that the silly little empire builders in the security services have as their primary goal the constant addition of staff and budget, so this sort of self-important, manipulative tosh makes a bit of sense—especially if you assume that the speaker doesn't realise how daft s/he sounds. (And of course it's become axiomatic that all modern politicians talk 100% ignorant drivel 100% of the time, so we won't even go there.)
But who tells them to blether this crap? When you hear the voice of yet another senior jackass mumbling through his trousers about "backdoors", you know that s/he has a cadre of knowledgeable advisers, back at the office, who do understand the details and who cannot possibly believe the pure garbage which The Boss is spouting live on TV. Does no one ever check speeches and review interview topics with them? Does The Boss never say "Read this and strike out anything that sounds illogical or wrong so I don't sound like an idiot in my interview tomorrow on Good Morning Bumville"?*¹
Pace the real crypto experts who recently invited the securo-empire to name and shame who was giving them (apparently terrible) advice, I ask of the Dept of Home Affairs: Which among your experts consented to making these statements? Why? Have you fired them yet? Have you considered a radical option, to wit: employing people who (a) know what they're talking about and (b) aren't afraid of speaking truth to power? Do you really not grasp that you undermine your authority, and public trust, every time you say something untrue and stupid?
*¹ "Whaddaya mean you deleted the whole speech? You're fired!"