a back door should be the front door where the one who needs the information goes to the office of the information holder and accesses the information inside the provider's space with the proper court warrants.

The EFF raises valid concerns regarding the abuse of security backdoors. As far as I remember, they and other privacy advocate have been doing so for the longest period of time.

Unfortunately, the real world will always fall short of the ideal one. Telegram and Durov are already facing this issue - where privacy ends and law enforcement begins.

Isn't this premature? Regardless of philosophy on government surveillance, there is no indication this was a "backdoor" or some mathematical weakness put in place by government.

A system designed to allow access to data is not by definition a backdoor.