Why would their targets use Facebook for communication when there's many other existing platforms that provide this service.
Privacy isn’t about having “nothing to hide” it's about freedom.
As soon as your privacy is taken away, so is your freedom.
Saying privacy is unnecessary because you have nothing to hide is like saying free speech is unnecessary because you have nothing to say.
Should we let people yell fire in a crowded theater?
Is freedom from fear a fundamental right? How fundamental?
Privacy yields to safety as free speech yields to safety...
For some time now, we’re no longer designing protections from probable harm, but theater abating improbable fears.
You can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater; if there is indeed a fire, it's fine — you're trying to help alert people to a dangerous situation. If there is not, and you cause a panic that results in injury to others, you could (should imo) be liable.
The US Supreme Court has a litmus test around when the line is crossed. Logically, there must be a balance to ensure one's rights do not infringe on another's, and when there is conflict, how to resolve it. In the case of party A threatening violence on party B, the line is if there is an imminent threat ('fighting words' — inciting an immediate attack), A is in the wrong. Otherwise, no 1A issue. It's much more difficult to prove in the case of stochastic speech targeting a person or group (eg Said before an audience: '$target is bad. Would be a shame if something happened to $target.' Implying someone in earshot should take care of it.).
I also want to highlight that free speech doesn't mean free of consequence — it only limits govt censorship. You can say what you want, but you may: incur financial loses (eg job or contract losses, boycotts), be ridiculed or shamed (ie become a pariah), be denied access to private properties / venues / events / forums (including web sites such as Twitter or Facebook), etc.
Let's turn it around. Imagine if law enforcement were completely unable to enter any home, even if they had a warrant to search it and reasonable suspicion that there was incriminating evidence inside. Anyone could do anything they wanted and as long as they kept the evidence inside their home there would be nothing law enforcement could do about it.
The arguments in favour of there being some way for law enforcement to be able to search messages when they have a warrant to do so are certainly worth considering, and (for what it's worth) I feel the sentiments in the open letter strike a good balance; but, I also feel that what they want is, currently, impossible without compromising security for everyone.
This meant mail or anything else carried by these vessels was fair game. Encryption really is a new level of privacy for international communications.
Because the kids pedophiles target are also there. Just like the easily manipulated teenagers are there for extremist instigation.
The letter does not concern the overall prevention of E2E encrypted communications (obviously unfeasible). It is about predatory and abusive crime settings that take place in online communities, of which Facebook is the largest one.
I am all in for the right to privacy and freedom of personal information protection. But if we go down that road we just as well should discuss the basic limits of freedom in any (offline) democratic society (ie law). I would not want to answer such a question, because it is much more complex than the usual "protect our freedom" privacy advocacy makes it look like when you consider law enforcement as a fundamental role of governments.