No, he did not say to end it, he wants to have access to it, based on probable cause. This sounds very lofty. And I do agree with his assessment. Except, there are a couple of  components missing.  People are no angels, including those in the executive. And since the founders clearly saw the executive to be the most prone to go to war, there were safeguards: Only congress could declare war.  Of course, Congress has abrogated it's fiduciary duty, and for all intends and purposes, assigning more and more power to the executive. (component one)  Right now, we have a Potus, showing tremendous restraint in employing these powers. His show of restraint is in stark contrast with what is coming out about the Deep State.  By the same token, there are those "no angels" we call criminals. Perhaps not convicted yet, but criminals nonetheless. It does not mean that .gov should be entrusted with unlimited surveillance power.  There is a reason requirement for citizenship is moral character. (component 2). If I want to travel into the US, despite the visa waiver, I have to, under penalty of perjury, declare I will follow the law without intent of evasion or breaking them. So, why would you, as a citizen, want to commit crime then? It would constitute a violation of the oath of allegiance.  Technically, there will always be the situation that new technology is invented to solve a solution. With regards to the gun discussion, we consider it idiocy to ban guns and the only people with guns are the criminals. Whether the guns as muskets or AR-15's.  The best comparison perhaps is wiretap. The problem I see is describing the item sought to complete a warrant application. Technical environment changes. But it does not necessarily mean that the executive should receive additional powers. But yeah, when you move from being a peace officer to law enforcement, you role changes, does it not? (component 3) As can be gleaned from just the above issue, laws change, too. (component 4). You want .gov surveillance on hate speech? Goto New York. The fare is up to 250.000 dollars!  It would be a disservice to apply unlimited surveillance power to any change in law.  Right now, most Americans will at least on average once a day transgress against the law of some kind. A law you may not even be aware of. (component 5). And as is evidenced by the events of the last 4 years, there are laws on the books of an obscurity level, even those who should be in the know, not even know about. You, as a citizen, are supposed to know the law. Well, I bid you "mucho suerte" with that. Even if you had a law degree, you would not know the law fully.  In this dynamic of striking a balance between liberty and security, sometimes answers are quite simple. If you need to give up essential liberty for security, you end up with neither. You do not need to dump encryption keys at yet another authority (component 6). If .gov want access to your living room, .gov will simply come to your place during a 6 AM raid, and knock your front door out, based on a warrant issued on probable cause describing the item sought.    By the same token, especially with the current state of technology (component 6), this whole discussion is moot as encryption keys can be broken, if needs be. All on the basis of probable cause in the hope that .gov does not mistake one house for the other ... or one computer for the other.  Another component has to do with practice. .gov can hang around your neck a host of infractions, wrecking your finances by the sheer costs of defense. (component 7). So, in effect, in the calculation you will be eager to strike a deal.  And this brings me to component 8. Standing with law enforcement is a matter of an engaged and informed virtuous population (component 8).  The discussion therefore is much bigger than just a balance of liberty vs security with regards to the digital realm.