In the New York Times story that unveiled the drive, the FBI cited a case where a mobster was using encrypted communication, and the FBI had to sneak into his office to plant a bug.
Why is this referred to in a way that suggests it is somehow not a routine part of serious police detective work?
Yes, exactly. There are ways of communicating such that no one can possibly hear it but the intended parties. In those cases law enforcement has to "get to" someone. Why not just stick with this approach instead of punishing certain forms of communication for being convenient?
Good question. What's wrong with serious police, detective, or spy work in these extreme edge cases where encrypted communication is a crucial piece of evidence?
Yes! I would love to pay more taxes for law enforcement to do their jobs instead of spending even more coming up with an overblown and inherently insecure backdoor scheme.
The time which law enforcement spends in "cloak and dagger" type activity is minuscule compared to the ordinary activity of driving around and arresting people.
Most criminals aren't smart. Most crimes are ill-thought-out.
Making secret investigations more expensive seems like a fine way to keep cops focused on "the basics".
The same way as marketing "experts" could become used to use sophisticated computer analysis and isolate their selves in their computers, forgetting to walk the street and ask customers, those people could isolate from the real criminals.
And criminals use codes when talking on the phone, thinks like "making the bed" could be the code to steal something, "drink soda" putting a bomb, so you need the serious work anyway.
Why is this referred to in a way that suggests it is somehow not a routine part of serious police detective work?