Every word in this article is utter nonsense, and yet the Washington Post gave it a platform.  <i>This is being treated as a serious debate</i>, with <i>sides</i> and <i>perspectives</i>, and nobody is laughing these people off the stage.  And if we engage with such arguments in the slightest, or give them the slightest bit of credibility, we&#x27;re taking a serious risk of allowing an Overton window (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Overton_window" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Overton_window</a>).<p>There are issues with sides.  This is not one of them.  There is no middle ground on this issue; there is &quot;broken&quot; and &quot;not broken&quot;.  &quot;Privacy&quot; and &quot;security&quot; do not mean &quot;except from the government&quot; or &quot;except for the company selling the device&quot;.  And it doesn&#x27;t matter whether a search is <i>lawful</i>; if it is <i>possible</i> without the consent of the owner, the device has a critical security bug.<p>A court can determine a search is <i>lawful</i> all they like; that gives them the right to perform the search.  You&#x27;ve got a warrant?  Here&#x27;s the device, go right ahead.  No, I don&#x27;t want it back; I have backups.<p>Governments wonder why technologists want to make it impossible to comply with their demands, and protect users even from themselves?  Because their demands look like <i>this</i> and we&#x27;re tired of losing.<p>How do we reach a point where people like this get laughed off the stage, the way they would if they talked about how much simpler maps would be for a flat earth?  How do we not just &quot;win&quot; this &quot;debate&quot; but prevent every future such &quot;debate&quot;?<p>How do we stop losing?  How do we end the fight completely and permanently?