in reply to Tuta

I presume that this is because "encrypted" is read as nefariously secret, rather than personal and private. Re frame the states need to know as wanting to put recording devices in therapist offices, confessionals, bedrooms even, and this invasion of privacy would cause outrage. These are no more personal than what i might choose to share at a distance with a dear friend, or lover. The " nothing to hide" argument does not survive the glass toilet door test!
in reply to Tuta

Looking at the actual words: "....erroneous perception that it is everyone's civil liberty to communicate on encrypted messaging services."
The word "everyone" is important. There are times when I think politicians should not have private discussions, the public have a right to know what they are plotting. Prisoners should not have the right to freely communicate in private with anyone they want (legal representatives, of course).
But for the 'general public', privacy is a human right
in reply to Tuta

My two pennies.. The real goal is to make us pay for their AI structures with our taxes. Since no one will pay enough for videos with talking kittens, they need a casus belli so that the puppets in government can first impose useless anti-paedophilia AI filters and then, with the excuse that they are necessary for the community, make us pay for them. This is because the structure they have already set up is not profitable and risks losing market share. If they really wanted to protect young people, they could simply start by allowing only adults free access to pornography. Last but not least, by standardising controls, paedophiles, the real ones, will only hide better..