Locks don't make predators untraceable

Ok,.cool? 70% of those don't apply to this conversation at all.

Look, it's clear you're willing to twist yourself into a pretzel and play whataboutism because you refuse to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth. That's fine, I get it.

Nearly every aspect of our society relies on the exploitation and suffering of others.

This is empty virtue signalling and false equivalency. Just say it. You think there's a unknowable volume of real life, actually happening, enablement of the pain, suffering, and death of men, women, and children you're willing to accept so Google or the government or whatever can't read your irrelevant and unimportant conversations

There's literally no way you can back up any of these claims. It's just what you want to be true.

All I want is for you to admit that you think protecting the "privacy" of people's mundane text conversations is worth enabling Terrorism, Child Sexual Abuse, Human Trafficking, Organized Crime, etc etc etc

To be clear, I think people should have a basic expectation of privacy. But at what cost? Like we've established it's impossible to have one without the other.

Making it more accessible helps the innocent more than it does the guilty.

Source?

If that's what you have to tell yourself, fine. But at least be intellectually honest here and admit you're simply willing to condone child abuse because you think Google or whatever looking at your texts is more egregious

You really can't have it both ways. It's morally bankrupt to launch protocols that clearly will be used for abhorrent purposes and simply hand wave it away because you're uncomfortable with the reality of the situation.

I think we all wish that weren't the case, but it is.

Saying crap like it wouldn't be a problem if law enforcement would just "git gud" makes you complicit