[LatteLazy]

It's the stepping stone between the two: you cannot believe the motivation is to keep kids safe if the action makes kids less safe. That doesn't prove a specific other motivation. But it does pretty decisively disprove the stated motivation.

[ethanbond]

Ah, I see. You’re saying the threat of someone successfully breaching a child’s data and appropriate keys from a service is more significant than the threat of just internet weirdos relying on E2E to transact child pornography with impunity.

[LatteLazy]

Pretty much. That is what happened every time other people have been given access.

We're in the middle of a whole bunch of cases of policemen being sacked or charged here for asking our underage girls on dates, keeping and sharing nudes from crime victims phones etc.

And remember: if someone is lying about why they're doing something that's further evidence it's not something you want. If they had a good reason, they'd be up front about it...