In universal strong encryption, I see something that is with us already and growing every day that will inexorably affect my ability to do that job. It may be that, as a people, we decide the benefits here outweigh the costs and that there is no sensible, technically feasible way to optimize privacy and safety in this particular context, or that public safety folks will be able to do their job well enough in the world of universal strong encryption. Those are decisions Americans should make, but I think part of my job is make sure the debate is informed by a reasonable understanding of the costs.
As long as he does not pursue any hare-brained schemes like the UK Prime Minister is proposing in banning strong encryption, I can understand his concerns, desire for a debate, and hopefulness about solutions. But if this is another attempt at the Clipper chip or some other scheme for degrading individual privacy, I am entirely opposed.