Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but I can just refuse to decrypt my data. They can just break physical locks.
This is what a lot of people in our community seemingly refuse to recognize. For all intents and purposes, encryption is a unbreakable lock that can serve to perfectly hide valuable criminal evidence. Such a thing wasn't possible when our laws were written and has never before been possible in the physical world. Its existence has potential to be a huge shift in how we enforce the law. Regardless of our views on encr…
That discussion has occurred several times. The government keeps talking after they hear the inevitable "no", at which point it's no longer a useful discussion.
There are no possible alternatives. Every possible alternative is equivalent to a backdoor. Any continuation of a discussion leads to "can we have a backdoor".
"Can we continue the discussion" amounts to "you haven't given us a backdoor yet".
There is a useful distinction to draw, though. There are two versions of "no". Some people use "no, that's not possible" (e.g. for technical reasons or because it'll break security properties), in which case the response either involves asking someone else or trying to legislate without knowledge. And some people use "no, we won't do that" (because it's working as designed and we're not looking to reduce security), in which case the responses involves anger and something roughly equivalent in content and tone to "why do you hate (insert country name here)".
Other useful variations on "no": "and what would you have us say when a country you don't like comes to our offices in their country and asks the same question". That one seems to produce slightly more thought, but ultimately an entitled response suggesting there should be some way to prefer their particular jurisdiction over all the others.