The government have said they are not requiring "weakening the security of internet services", good.
The security of internet services is such that it is possible for two people to communicate where it is impossible (in any practical sense) for a third party to see that communication (without the one of the people telling them).
This is privacy, and it is important, as it saves us from criminals where that third party is a criminal.
But, the government have said they want "access the content of communications of terrorists and criminals".
But as we said, the security of internet services now can (and often does) mean it is impossible for a third party (even if that third party is the police) to access the content of communications.
There is a way to make it possible, obviously, and that is called "weakening the security of the internet".
Do you see the contradiction now?
The exact technicalities do not change that fundamental contradiction.