In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
Governments abused countless innocents throughout history. Trusting the government is foolish; one should always be cautious of what they do or say, but not mindlessly so.
In this case, it's not an issue of a lack of trust; this man's position is fundamentally ridiculous and privacy would be important even in an "ideal world" where the government was full of perfect beings.
That's fine so long as you understand the tradeoff you are advocating.
It will likely involve an increased amount of crime, terrorism and money spent on resources to tackle the aforementioned problems. I don't know how much of an increase we're talking about.
On the flip side, it will be harder for the government to snoop on its citizens. Again, I'm not sure how much harder it'll actually be.
Personally, I'd rather risk some unwanted government snooping (there will always be some bad apples) compared to the risk of crime and terrorism groups gained a foothold. The former is a potential attacker. The latter is a guaranteed attacker. The former provides some form of transparency. The latter provides none.
I don't believe that you can have it both ways. I see this as choosing the lesser evil.