If you really want to converse with governments then it helps to steelman their position before arguing it. Bear in mind I am against weakening cryptography when reading this:

I am a government. 20% of my population are tech savvy, a different very minorly overlapping 20% are criminals. Given the law of distributions this is probably pretty close to true.

Now, those 20% of criminals are very varied in their delights, violent, sexual or theft. Serious crime such as pedophilia or terrorism is very low probability overall.

However, as a government, I can't be seen to be weak on those extreme positions because they are highly visible; the 80% population simply will not allow me to argue in good faith for protections which _might_ help such extreme criminals operate easier.

The technical feasibility of good opsec for criminals is usually very low, and the FBI has a decent track record of targeted surveillance.

But I, the politician, cannot communicate effectively with 80% of people, when the populist says that I am weak on terrorists and pedophiles. I only weaken my own position and allow the populist access to power, because 80% > 20%.

--

The biggest benefit and the biggest problem with democracy is that everyone has a voice, even the uninformed.

If you listen to all politicans by numbers there will be liars and opportunists among them; then you're not uninformed, you're misinformed, and that's arguably worse.

The general public have shown time and again that they don't really care about privacy. And the movies have convinced them that the government can monitor anything at any time already (but only use it for catching crooks), so what's to lose?

The minority of the population who are tech-savvy enough to know this is going to be a complete disaster are unimportant in politician's eyes - no-one listens to us nerds in the corner doing nerd stuff.

They are run by humans who are seeking power over other humans. Easy.

Things like these tends to be backed by pressure from the US. It would surprise me if it wasn't the case here.

By definition, a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within its jurisdiction. And, as any other monopolist, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain that position.