(1) crimes happen, and have happened forever (2) historically people simply did not create a huge written record (texts etc) detailing their crimes, so there’s

(1) crimes happen, and have happened forever (2) historically people simply did not create a huge written record (texts etc) detailing their crimes, so there’s no change in available information (3) even before any of this tech police are not good a solving crimes, and generally rely on errors by criminals (4) and finally. Your argument is definitionally the slippery slope and is the reason the 4th and 5th amendments exist in the US. Your argument is trivially extended to literally everything: why shouldn’t all communication be routed through government servers to find evidence of crimes? Why shouldn’t all device locations be available to police at all times? Why shouldn’t you have video and audio recorders in every home (most child abuse, the quintessential horror) is committed by family members in the home. Having actual privacy does not result in crime, and mandating that privacy should be illegal in only a single case is clearly nonsense. Either you have a right to privacy or you don’t.