At first I thought that you linked to the wrong poll by mistake.

The last question does show more "favor" than "oppose" for installing back doors in encrypted systems, but the first question shows much more "oppose" than "favor" for reducing encryption to help government agencies. The second question shows that more people want tech companies to protect customer privacy than to cooperate with government agencies to fight terrorism and crime.

So people want encryption back doors that don't reduce encryption and don't require tech companies to cooperate with government agencies. Of course "we can have all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff" is a common delusion among government agencies proposing encryption back doors too.

I mean, when you the word question like that and say the backdoor is to “monitor suspected terrorists” of course the average idiot will agree. They think it won’t apply to them & their communications. They aren’t terrorists, so why should they mind? Most people have no idea how far the government is able to stretch the law under the auspice of “safety.” Perhaps naively, I believe people would be outraged if they actually understood how the Patriot Act is used and what a backdoor would allow the government to do.

The funny thing is, I bet 90% of the people supporting backdoors here also think China's government monitoring is a gross violation of human rights.

> However "we" want them to be able to "stop the bad guys" and "monitor bad communication".

This is appropriate, under the assuption of accountability; right now, three letter agencies aren't subject to it.

> "We" also have nothing to hide.

This is disingenous or naive (and it's a worringly widespread idea). Literally (as in literal-literal) anybody can be accused and charged, it's just a matter of legal power¹. Giving up privacy makes it dangerously easier.

¹=There's even a book on this subject (although the angle is not precisely this): https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...