Even with E2E the police can get warrants for the devices which is usually more than enough to access data.
They just want an easier job, it’s not a major roadblock. When police jobs being easy is a good sign that privacy has been completely destroyed.
E2E is not required for privacy. There is also a difference between privacy and the right to privacy, and a guarantee that no-one will ever be able to know what I'm doing.
There is no absolute, including absolute right. It's all about balance: We have a right to privacy but the police may search our homes and eavesdrop on our communications in strict, specific circumstances because that's in the public interest. The idea is simply to have the same online.
If the system uses only P2P encryption then no backdoor is needed, which actually makes the system more secure to external threats. It is then for the provider to allow access to data only to "allowed government agencies" according to the law, which is how mobile phone networks work.
I don't agree with this -- but I think this does strike at the very heart of what the debate is all about.
Why? And while we are at it, why is this such a given that they need it.
Law enforcement and security agencies need to be able to access any communication. This does not mean that they should monitor all communications.
They can eavesdrop on any phone call. They do not eavesdrop on all phone calls.
The problem with E2E encryption is that it prevents eavesdropping even with the standard legal safeguards (warrant, etc), while not being required for the privacy of users. It is only effectively a marketing tool to convince people to use services from providers they don't trust, although, of course, since they control the app they can still in principle access the data.