Even if you grant "only the government has access," I think you still shouldn't be complacent, because what the government considers acceptable can change, and may not agree with what you think is acceptable.

E.g., maybe a govt comes into power that is strongly anti-gay, and punishes you for being pro-gay rights.

Or the opposite.

In general the idea that the government will always be reasonable and should have unlimited surveillance powers is unsound and unappealing.

Or the current situation in Hong Kong with China, for example.

The counter-counter-argument is the whole history of both individual (against policy) and official (by policy) abuse of surveillance in the history of government. Every expansion of monitoring must weigh the specific expected benefits against the very real cost of expanding both of those abuse surfaces.

Just check out the Stasi in Germany. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sure. But Kevin, who works in a government department, is someone.

No, because such a scheme is not really possible. It’s only a matter of time before the governments secret key gets leaked.

I work for the government.

Mind if I riffle through your contacts? Is it ok to DM any cute people I find?

Why do cute people need special protection?

Only if you were willing to accept the "we can trust the government" part.

Which government?