They are comparing to the word "hide" in the context authorities use it, e.g. "nothing to hide". They are not drawing comparisons using the word generically, and they make this explicit. Your two assertions seem to ignore this (i.e. it seems like you're "playing word games").
At least with locking your door because you are afraid the government is going to break in to your house without a warrant is the same. If someone is doing this either they have done something illegal, e.g. "have something to hide", or they are have a mental issue where they have problems with trust and are overly paranoid.
Everyone has something to hide from public view, at least in the sense that you don't want anyone (government or civilian burglar) being able to steal your stuff or know what sort of stuff you have on your hard drive. And by everyone, I include regular people who might have a regular desktop or laptop without disk encryption.
There's literally no difference. None. This was tried before with special locks that 'only the TSA had the keys to open'. The keys were posted online for anyone to make their own. It's also been tried commercially with various DRM and failed.
There is no such thing as a 'government only, and only with a warrant' backdoor. There is either private or not private.
The problem with TSA keys is that they are all the same, can easily be cloned, and couldn't be rotated.
It is possible to design a system where judges have their own hardware keys. Hardware keys can not be cloned assuming strong tamper protection. If a hardware key gets stolen it can be revoked as being valid and a judge can be issued a new one.
DRM is different because the client ultimately has to have the keys to decrypt the content they have been permitted access to.
Shot in the dark here? Which Government are you talking about? Saudi? Where being gay is a death sentence?
No? How about the US where being Japanese was illegal?
China's got the most people, perhaps we take a wold wide vote to see?
Biggest land mass?
Millionaires per population (the 1%)?
Who would control the creation of the keys? I mean which tech vender would control access to my android phones encryption? My phone was made in China, and the chips inside it were made in China. They also have the most people, so it seems fair they control the keys.
No, we're not. We're talking about the EARN-IT act, which wants to legally require all website owners to report all kinds of things to law enforcement, without any probable cause that anyone has commmitted a crime and without any kind of warrant.
Not explicitly, no. But it is not feasible for applications to comply with the provisions of the bill while still supporting E2EE, so the bill's effect will be to largely eliminate the use of E2EE.
Why are you afraid of the government randomly killing you? I think you only have to think about that if you're doing or planning something very illegal. People who have problems with trust and are overly paranoid might fantasize about that sort of thing, but the average citizen who doesn't do anything wrong will be fine.
