No offense to apeace but this is the far better argument. A conversation in a bar is public already; you have no idea if the person sitting across the room might have a microphone trained on you and recording the conversation, because you are speaking in a group within a larger group with no protections. There is no expectation of privacy so there is no argument for privacy in that analogy.

It's far better to ask why we should have encryption (for our safety, our security, and yes, our personal privacy) rather than whether we should have it. The government, with this bill, is debating whether we should have it, when it's obvious to the people that we definitely should. Turn that around on the senators proposing it; ask them if they want to build in back doors into our digital lives, can we as their employers and electors do the same thing to them?