The police fear anonymity and cryptography on the internet - and therefore, for example, rail against state-funded anonymization services. However, this is simply the usual conflict of technology: the application can happen in two ways. No one talks about the reasons why anonymization services and encryption systems are quite legitimately used; only criminal use is the topic. Should we ban hammers and sickles, after all, you can kill people with both.
What is worrying about this development is that the use of cryptography will probably be restricted - or as it is called in modern German: regulated - in the short or long term. And at some point, the situation will arise where encrypted emails are already considered suspicious. Suspicion is no longer needed to spy on someone. And what is more obvious than to assume illegality of someone who encrypts their emails?
Every society must deal with abuse of the system and abuse of society - and with those who completely fall out of societal norms. This is annoying and in many cases even tragic - but cannot be changed. However, the problem is not solved by putting the entire society under general suspicion. Ultimately, what remains is a society that is no longer worth living in and preserving because everything is based on surveillance and denunciation. Restricting the rights of ordinary citizens does not result in a single fewer criminal - rather more, because more and more citizens will resist the regulations (and according to the definition of people like Otto Orwell, are then simply criminals).
What is completely ignored here, in my opinion, is the point that crime does not only consist of the perhaps technically difficult-to-access encrypted channel - there must always also be effects outside. Child pornography is not only traded on the internet - it is also produced at some point. Organized crime does not only organize the exchange of PGP keys on the internet - it organizes human smuggling, illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and who knows what else. Every crime therefore always has facets that take place quite openly and recognizably in society. Investigations are primarily carried out in this area to this day - the eavesdropping has not yet brought reproducibly better results than those already achieved through normal investigations. On the contrary: the eavesdropping, dragnet searches, and similar approaches have all failed, especially when considering the immense personnel deployments (and thus costs) of these actions. And no, the genetic sample was not decisive even in the Moshammermord case.
Regulating network technologies will not prevent their use for criminal purposes - it will only make legal use more difficult or stigmatize it. Someone who smuggles people certainly has far fewer scruples about violating cryptography laws than someone who only uses cryptography because they don't like the idea of the state reading everything.