People challenging this anti-crypto movement should really push this example because it is really perfect. Before we consider key escrow, please explain exactly how physical key escrow was breached in New York and tell us how that will be prevented when the key in question isn't even something you have to physically get.
This should always be presented as an additional argument, though, not the only argument. Because an argument based solely on securing the backdoor implies that if it could be kept secure enough, there's no other reason not to do it.
Even if we could somehow guarantee absolutely that the backdoor will only be used by the intended users, backdoors are still not acceptable. For much the same reason that it's not acceptable to put a camera in every home or car, even if the footage were "only" accessible by the government with a warrant.
The answer to the begged question of the New York key escrow example is that it is impossible to guarantee a backdoor is 100% secured and only accessible by the intended users.
I'm not sure the camera analogy will carry weight. It sounds hyperbolic to most people as it tries to equate actually being recorded in your private affairs to the possibility of materials being accessed when a warrant is issued.
Most people have no problem with law enforcement accessing evidence when a warrant is issued. The only way to win over the general population is to demonstrate encryption is fundamentally different then simple access.
