United Kingdom

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm assuming you don't know that likening anyone who doesn't want to have all of their personal information viewed to terrorists and paedophiles is the classic "what do you have to hide?" authoritarian argument to spy on everyone all the time.

1. There have already been plenty of cases of data collected without a warrant just because they could.
2. Do you still want that data to be collected and used to prosecute you if whichever political party you don't like get in and make something you like doing illegal?
3. It is impossible to make a backdoor that only goodies can use. The actual terrorists and paedophiles will use a non-backdoored system, meanwhile every criminal organisation and rival nation state will eventually find out how to use the backdoor and get everyone's information.

The question is do you want serious cyber criminals, and whatever authoritarian government shows up at some point and starts tearing up the already increasingly authoritarian UK rule book (hi America) to have access to all communications? Should they have access to journalist's sources, and other activists' communications? Should cyber criminals have access to all financial data?

You don't get one without the other. Encryption either works or it doesn't. And you can certainly assume that dedicated nation state actors (who will and do work with people that do not want a liberal open society in countries across the world including the UK) will quickly develop the capability to circumvent any exploitable encryption.

In this case the increasingly authoritarian/data-totalitarian UK government and secret services has been trying to do it in secret. They want their eyes on everything at all times and damn the consequences for an open society. They sure are doing their bit to end the 20th century idea of a free, open, tolerant society I grew up being told existed.

Then again, I watched some sort of parliamentary enquiry more than a decade ago where somebody from gchq nonchalantly admitted they abuse UK citizen's human right of privacy as a matter of course and everybody in the room just shrugged. It caused no ripple at all in the press. No doubt the likes of gchq face all sorts of threats we the public are not aware of, but they appear to operate with no checks and balances whatsoever, and they are playing right into the hands of extremists who want to see the end of an open society in order that their extreme views become more acceptable.

It must be said that personal privacy is a cornerstone of a civilised society. You either have that or you don't. For many people, particularly those that pay attention to this stuff, we have already gone too far. There is a lot an individual can do to mitigate the intrusion of US tech corporations, but destroying encryption, in a world where so much can only be done online, affects everybody regardless of personal choices they have made. To try and do it in secret is even worse.

If that means compromising encryption, which it does, then the benefits to everyone of end-to-end encryption and the protection it affords against both government overreach/abuse and third-party intruders tend to outweigh the benefits of government surveillance through encryption backdoors.

Which party promises to defend end-to-end encryption? I thought there were no good options.

Wasn't this law started by the Tories?