No, I didn't miss it. I'll admit that the article isn't directly calling for an end to encryption, but, at least the way I read it, there's some subtext about it. It seems like they're approaching encryption with the assumption that it's bad but we can't do anything about it, not that encryption is a good tool being used for evil.
> A trickier issue is presented by the encryption deployed by Apple, Facebook, Google and a range of smaller services that thwart law enforcement’s ability to access a target’s communications, even with a court order.
Why do they describe it as 'thrwarting' law enforcement? It's not thrwarting anything, it's just not providing them a back door.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this article feels like it has something between the lines.
Did you miss that part in the article?