Why do criminals have more rights than I do?
The argument ignores the catastrophic cost of the solution: destroying privacy for all of us. Creating a backdoor for police doesn't just hinder criminals; it makes everyone's data, from journalists to your medical records, vulnerable to hackers and abuse.
I believe we stop crime with good policing, not by building a system of total surveillance that sacrifices the very freedom we're trying to protect.
Anecdotally, take a look at China where privacy doesn't exist and yet Chinese syndicates are responsible for a major chunk of the issues you've listed. So clearly lack of privacy doesn't even correlate with decreased criminal behavior.
If you have two networks, one encrypted and one not, and the unencrypted network is significantly easier / cheaper to use or has better network effects, that's where most people will naturally flock. The only ones who will put in the effort to use the encrypted one are criminals and a few principled technologists / civil libertarians. In such a world, the mere fact of using the encrypted network is suspicious in itself.
We define "criminals" here as "anybody the government doesn't like." In the US, this is mostly child predators, drug traffickers, thieves, and maybe a few (legal) sex workers. In other places, this is mostly homosexuals, human-rights activists, journalists and the opposition.
The way to fix the "witch hunt" problem is to make all networks encrypted and secure.
While cryptocurrency is mostly used by criminals, as the traditional financial system is just good enough for most people, TLS is used by everybody, as it is just the default way to do things on the internet nowadays. This is despite the fact that TLS makes wiretapping criminals' communications much harder.
The US and Europe[1] should use the influence they have over standards bodies to make prosecuting the latter group of "criminals" much harder, recognizing that this comes at the expense of also letting some criminals in the EU/US sense of the word run free. It is just the morally right thing to do.
[1] I mostly mean American and European companies and organizations which participate in the process of standard setting, not governments, which mostly cannot do things for complicated political reasons.
However, with the current "regime change", the targets of tracking are expanding exponentially to basically anyone who says or does anything the current leadership does not like.
This has been warned about repeatedly with this type of tracking for decades - when "bad actors" take power and abuse that power, then everyone becomes a target. Fascists love data collection, aggregation and data-based decision-making.
"innocent until proven guilty" exists for a reason.
Do you have a URL for this proof?
(If it's true, that would be good to know.)
I don't see how you've become a criminal just because you don't want somebody in the same coffee shop to see what you're posting or browsing.
Is it fine because it's not "truly" secure? How secure is so secure that it crosses the line and becomes evil?
We are not beholden to ruining everything for almost everyone to stop a small fee from doing bad things. It’s not any more complicated than that.
As the other commenter mentioned please provide proof for these hyperbolic claims.
False. "The majority of X are Y" does not imply that any particular X is Y.
I don't have data for Signal. I use it extensively. Even setting aside that the American legal system makes everyone a criminal several times a day so that the laws can be selectively enforced against anyone who becomes a target, I have no data on whether the majority of Signal users are criminals, but given that criminals have significantly higher interest in secure communications than the general population it wouldn't shock me if evidence came out that it was the case.
How long before US states that are enforcing online ID laws will be doing the same?