This is an interesting thought to consider. I&#x27;d note that there are people who aren&#x27;t very happy about the present state of SWAT team usage, prosecuting folks in such a way to require plea deals, and other excesses in the state&#x27;s exercising of it&#x27;s powers.<p>On a specific line:<p>&gt; If your objection to this is [...] you are also arguing that strong encryption [...] should not be allowed for public use<p>This is a false equivalence: asking for restrictions on the state is not equivalent to asking for restrictions on the public.<p>Also in general, there is no requirement to make &quot;digital violence&quot; the same as &quot;physical violence&quot;. The state&#x27;s use of violence is restricted by law, I don&#x27;t see a reason the forbidding of &quot;digital violence&quot; would fall outside the legal framework already established.