I stumbled across this document, "International Statement: End-to-end Encryption And Public Safety", signed by several politicians who identify themselves far-right. The statement essentially demands the IT companies to provide with backdoors in their encryption algorithms to ensure "governments, acting with appropriate legal authority" access to encrypted documents.
A significant part of the petition identifies child sexual abuse as the justification for attacking on cyber security. It reiterates the number of child-protecting organizations who are working on the problem of child abuse, however it never explains why this type of crime should be the main reason for demanding security backdoors.
For example, it is known that encrypted communications have been used for coordinating the effort of criminals involved in drug trafficking, international terrorism, arms sales, assassinations and torture, and even in manipulating elections in foreign countries.
Why do these politicians so… ermm… exaggeratedly demonstrate their concern about the child abuse, but not about other — no less serious and evident — crimes?
My first guess (and this is why I emphasize that they who signed the Statement are on the far-right of the political spectrum) is that the government control over everything is basically more of a left-wing agenda, while personal privacy is the concept the right-wings usually defend. This Statement is something completely different, and this makes me think that the sides of a political spectrum might be the key for answering this question. Correct me if I'm wrong.