theregister[.]co[.]uk/2016/07/14/gov_says_new_home_sec_iwilli_have_powers_to_ban_endtoend_encryption/
When Snowden released all that info on the NSA, we learned some of the extent that governments were eavesdropping on our communications. That spawned moves by companies like Google, Apple, Facebook etc. to start encrypting everything they could fairly easily encrypt. This meant that your conversations could have the same sort of security as your online banking or transactions with stores like Amazon.
Governments don't like that. In some countries they simply ban [or threaten to ban] companies &/or services that don't play by their set of rules. In the US & UK, they try to get laws on the books. Security experts & privacy advocates say that the results will mean the security you have now for your online banking & transactions, would be drastically weakened as a sort of collateral damage -- that proposed laws & regs deal with generally providing access to all encrypted communications [i.e. inserting back doors], regardless the nature of those communications.
Governments like to focus on how limiting encryption would make you safer -- critics say OK, then show us when & how it has helped in the past. As usual both sides of the debate likely overstate their arguments, & there are side issues, e.g. if you agree with the government claims, how much do you trust the individual people working for the government, &/or how much do you trust the government to keep things like secret back doors secret -- they do tend to have dismal records when it comes to IT & security.