As Bruce Schneier has commented: he's not against targeted surveillance, undertaken with cause and a specific warrant.

It's bulk surveillance of everyone, everywhere and at all times, that's a problem.

Taking measures which raise the cost of surveillance helps ensure that if they get your data, it's because they really want it. Not just because they can.

This standard response misses the nuance of end-to-end encryption: If the default everywhere was EoE encryption, it becomes significantly harder for anyone to target you (for an average value of you)

Targeted surveillance always gets its man.

Global EoE encryption's benefit is making it significantly (and perhaps prohibitively) more expensive to engage in bulk surveillance.

Well every second start proposition on HN is "you give us access to your..."

So if the default was EoE, it still wouldn't matter.

this is really pedantic but why is End To End Encryption shortened as EoE?

No idea - I was just grabbing some terminology used in the post I was responding to. EtE would make more sense.