"Chat Control" is mass surveillance, not targeted Action. Targeted action mayhaps needs some readjustment, but by and large is already easy to obtain for law enforcement.

Normalizing mass surveillance would set a precedent for authoritarian regimes worldwide to demand similar access, further eroding privacy and human rights on a global scale.

I also oppose it on technical grounds, since it would be some kind of local or hybrid ai that does the scanning. A high number of false positives harming innocents would certainly be the result.

New technology (cheap sensors, machine intelligence models) is already providing law enforcement with a wide array of new tools for identifying and building a legal case against people committing crimes. I don't see any reason to believe the law will somehow become unenforceable without gimping encrypted communications.

Communications surveillance is unconstitutional in my EU country.

No we don't.

> as a society we do need some sort of targeted backdoor into communications

So just blanket "no private communication for anyone"? I mean, why shouldn't people be able to communicate privately? There is no such thing as a "single owner of backdoors", so why try play that game when it never ends with just a single owner?

If there was a way to ensure it was done only with a warrant and they weren’t hoovering up and scanning everything then perhaps. Is there a way this could be done?

> as a society we do need some sort of targeted backdoor into communications

why you are assuming this is true?

I think a more elegant solution would simply be to assign everyone a minder to monitor in real time, it is simpler than securely back-dooring (hell of an oxymoron) encryption systems and you get the added bonus of massive employment numbers.

In fact the minder's minder could be the minder's charge and you get 100% employment.

(/s)