That’s not really a fair comparison. One reason that many information security folks don’t explicitly state who they’re keeping out is because it’s widely accepted that there are sophisticated attackers out there. China, Russia, etc. all have competent cyber-warfare contingents. There are fraudsters out there messing with banks and other businesses. Real cops aren’t out there shooting it out with DEVGRU but there, in reality, are unscrupulous, skilled, and well trained hackers to contend with.
The government will always be for such backdoors and try to weasel them into any new technology because the people responsible for deciding such policies have their personal jobs and reputations on the line if something fails. The only way we can get government to back off is to somehow decouple these two things, like if a law is passed where missed terrorist attacks, preventable accidents, and lost information could not be blamed on the director of the NSA or FBI, and they get to keep their jobs no matter how much info they miss because of strong encryption. Instead of making them try to think up a reason why they didn’t catch Vincent from blowing up Times Square, they would, in theory, be able to just say “that would have required us to tap into encrypted communication, its not worth it, just deal with the aftermath”. Of course that’s not going to happen as long as we expect 100% protection from terrorists and the like
We effectively have that already – nobody lost their jobs after the Feds blew off a specific warning about the Tsaranaev brothers. (That example, BTW, suggests that giving the government access to an even bigger flood of data in which to lose the actual signals would be as counterproductive as building a garage extension for a pathological hoarder.)