We should not normalize the idea that it's acceptable within a country's borders either.
It's a massive overreach to demand a backdoor to phones within the country. Don't allow the even bigger overreach to move the Overton window and make it seem like it should ever be acceptable.
I think it's reasonable here to differentiate between acceptable and legal. It's completely unacceptable, but the British people have proven time and time again they're more than happy to make horrifically unacceptable things completely legal in the pursuit of "safety."
As with the US, I would not equate "British lawmakers passed" with "British people are happy to". British people are not given direct referendum on this issue specifically, and all of the mainstream British parties currently support the Snooper's Charter.
It's easy to sell people that "we just need this one more bit of access to your private data, it helps us stops paedophiles and terrorists", but each step takes us further down a bad path.
I'm sure everybody would agree that having full camera surveillance inside every UK home is too far, but no oversight at all is also bad.
There is a point along that line where society would say "no, that's enough", but successive governments have realised that they can slowly push that point further right and nobody seems to notice, or care.
I'm not aware of British people rioting in the streets over living in a society with multiple cameras on every corner of every street, where police knock on your front door based on social media posts. They seem to accept it, even welcome it.
If the people were strongly against the Snooper's Charter there would be politicians willing to stand against it. The parties do not impose their will on the people, they do and say what they must to gain and keep power.
(Note: nothing in this message should be construed as support for the US thinking that non-US accounts or non-US income of US citizens should be any of their business.)
There's a large difference between backdooring end-to-end encryption and accessing financial records that are already by design available to the financial institution.
Why would the IRS need to access my records? Or need to impose non-US citizens to sign affidavits outside the US?
FYI I am not a "US Person", whatever that means, yet when I signed up with my bank account in an EU country I had to sign an affidavit claiming I am not a "US Person", although that designation has no meaning in the local laws.
(Note: this is an explanation, not an endorsement or any form of support.)
These requirements are in place in part because the US wants to tax the income of US citizens no matter where they are in the world. So, they make requirements like FATCA and make requirements on foreign banks that amount to "we won't do business with you unless you impose these requirements on all US citizens (which inherently also means asking everyone if they're a US citizen)".
These decryption requirements are being put in place in part because the UK wants to find potential criminals no matter where they operate from in the world. So, they make requirements like back doors and make requirements on companies that amount to "we will fine you a % of your global revenue unless you impose these requirements on all potential criminals" (which inherently also means decrypting everyone's messages)".
It's a massive overreach to demand a backdoor to phones within the country. Don't allow the even bigger overreach to move the Overton window and make it seem like it should ever be acceptable.