Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normal people: We see you host groups for organized crime, we need targetted data you have about those criminals. This is what law enforcement should do (instead of surveillance dragnets). HN: NO! free speech. Sincere advice: get out of those libertarian echo chambers, and think about real consequences.
I'm not a liberatarian nor am I a US citizen (Australian), however ... IF you let LEO's access group chats THEN you absolutely need civilian accountable honest transparent clear oversight to avoid mission creep. The task isn't as clear cut as "known criminal is part of OC groups", there's a clear Sorities Paradox asking when does an OC group chat become a neighbourhood watch | knitting group chat. If our criminal of…
I am pretty much against surveillance in the form of drag nets, but none of that applies here. Instead, this is exactly how a functional state should work.
(And note that no exceptions are made for Pavel because he is rich and well-connected. Contrast that with brittle countries where politicians rely on tech billionaires to fund their campaigns.)
I sympathize with you being an Aussie; I can see where your allergy comes from, but in this case it is misplaced.