> I'm encrypting my disk now, but I'll give the password to police if they have a search warrant. I'm encrypting so if somebody steals my computer they won't read my data. I think that almost everybody is like me.
I may be taking the word "everyone" too literally, but I think that part of the problem is that most people don't think like you and don't really understand the benefits of encryption and why it's a practical tool for absolutely everyone, not just terrorists, pedophiles, and drug dealers. There's a very big educational gap when it comes to encryption, and I don't think that most people can even cover the basics of it very well, which makes it extremely difficult at times to tell if law enforcement and politicians even understand the implications of what they propose beyond the immediate benefit to their operations.
However, I do think that your position is probably the best that can help people to begin to understand why encryption is important; there still is a disconnect where most people don't understand that encryption is an all or nothing ordeal, or if they do, they accept the rationalization that the weakening of encryption is important for the security of the nation, whichever nation that may be.
But in general, encryption is a problem because it operates in a blackbox for the majority of people, and it's incredibly easy for talking heads to say just about whatever they want on it without being challenged. It feels to me like strong encryption is one of those lessons that people are going to have to learn the hard way, much like how a lot of people learn about backing up data only after having a hard-drive go with important data on it. Though it would likely be difficult to prove, I think it's going to require that a government exploit or something intentionally weakened by a governmental actor be utilized by criminals to harm the public at large before people really get the idea on what government-approved encryption really means.