I don't agree with the backdooring proposals at all, but neither do I agree with the counter argument of "this is a people problem, so technology won't solve it".
Getting back to the locks example, in reality, the police can and do open any door they please. The locks are simply weak, and if the locks aren't, the constructions are. So they have no problem with people locking up, because they can override it whenever.
I don't think there's an appropriate technological solution to people abusing secrecy. But people opting into surveillance can be seen as a social solution to counter such abuse. It's basically the "I have nothing to hide" argument, but not as an argument, but a practical application. In this scenario, opting in to surveillance would be a social signal that one is not an abuser, and so, this would make resisting surveillance a signal to side with the abusers. If this would gain traction somehow, it would be like Japan and its porn censorship law. I don't think any politician there seriously thinks that the measly censorship does anything, but they also don't want to be the pervert politician who goes against the moral law.