You fail to see what the problem is here. The problem is freedom eroding banking laws that do peer into my fruit transactions. They should be first challenged in the courts. Calling for violence isn't legal either, doesn't mean we support the state peering into all my emails.
You have a valid point but when there are conflicting interests, regulations are typically designed to act on the pivot point where they are likely to be effective, have a concentrated set of targets and create minimal harm.
In the case of finance, it is easier and more effective to delegate the bankers to keep tabs on who is moving (large sums of) money around and refuse service to anyone that seems suspicious. With regards to email providers, no similar nexus exists.
You can best believe that if email providers were registered and licensed and the issue of people using email to commit crimes were sufficiently pronounced, having them scan all emails for suspicious activity would be seriously considered (and there would be a good argument for it).
And I'm not going to support the inevitable law that has a LLM scan all of my digital communication either. no matter how they wrap it up in a bow of public safety. The world is safer every year, yet somehow there's more and more scary reasons why the state should have its boot on my face.
