>I am quite certain they did pass a law allowing AI to scan everything sent over any electronic communication media and autoreport you to the prosecutor before app encrypts it
There's actually precedent of something similar happening in the early days of the internet.

Here's a quote from the book Net.Wars by Wendy:
>Clipper, which the government imagined would be built into all kinds of telephony devices from modems to mobile phones, was a bit of hardware that was supposed to garble data just as effectively as PGP. To cypherpunks, there was a significant difference: Clipper had a special built-in function that would store, or escrow, a copy of your private key with a government agency so that in case of need law enforcement couldretrieve the key and decrypt your communications. Only with a court order, of course

>The political objections were obvious: why should the government have the ability to read people’s private electronic communication? The Post Office doesn’t keep an escrowed copy of every letter we write, and no little chip tracks our daily movements in case law enforcement later needs to find out what we were doing on February 23, 1973 (even if video cameras go up daily). Opposition came from all sorts of places: the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the American Civil Liberties Union, and software industry giants like Microsoft and IBM’s Lotus subsidiary (whose product Notes is made to handle complex, confidential, business-wide databases

>Nonetheless, then NSA general counsel Stewart Baker dismissed the protests this way at CFP’94 and later in print in Wired: “The opposition to Clipper is coming from people who weren’t allowed to go to Woodstock because they had to finish their math homework