
Alas, cryptography is not simple
> Cryptography itself has to be simple to use or people won't use it.
This, I humbly propose, is exactly where we took a wrong turn. Long time ago; shortly after PGP appeared on the scene.
Little Jenny has nothing to hide. Prodding her to encrypt her e-mails only so that those of us who have good reasons to encrypt would not attract the attention of the Chief Magistrate was (a) not entirely ethical and (b) most certainly counterproductive.
A high-level military commander in any normal army does not protect his communications because it is simple to do so, he does it because if he does not, or of he fumbles doing it, he is taken in front of a pockmarked wall and offered his last cigarette.
If there was any way to ascertain the facts, I would offer a reasonable bet to any present that none in the clown troupe under examination could explain the difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical encryption, and outline the challenges of public key verification. If they did, they would not include new members to a communication cluster without performing (in this case not particularly well designed, but serviceable) public key verification by Signal "Safety Number" exchange via a personal telephone call... (Hello, may I speak to the editor-in-chief of The American East Ocean..?)
This, I believe, is the essence of the claim of fallacy in that quote.