I think this is a very negative idea to promote: that laws should can be subverted. Everyone should believe that laws work and when they don't we should work to fix that, not assume that it can never be fixed.
I think this is a very negative idea to promote: that laws should can be subverted. Everyone should believe that laws work and when they don't we should work to fix that, not assume that it can never be fixed.
I think it's healthy to imagine how authorities might abuse power and under what impetus, in order to head off those abuses. Laws have been subverted in the past, so it's rational to assume that they might be subverted in the future. This is actually a cornerstone of any effort to fix issues.
On the other hand, it can be a grave mistake to confuse how things should be with how things are. Activists and whistleblowers should not act with the blind assumption that laws will protect them and that "minor" hurdles to law enforcement (i.e., the 5th amendment in the US) will be sufficient to protect them either.
I'm also unfortunately not convinced that some of these problems are tractible -- one of the core issues is that the legal systems of the world have adopted the third-party doctrine for warrants and so even if there was a legal right to prevent everyone's devices from being backdoored you would also have to depend on Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple to be willing to go to court at great expense to defend your rights. I don't like to think of myself as being cynical, but I just don't believe that would happen. And if the company is happy to comply, law enforcement doesn't even need a warrant. I honestly don't see how anything other than technological solutions are on the table here.
(I am aware of the high-profile stuff with Apple and Google claiming to fight against backdoors in court. In this respect I must admit that I am a cynic -- Cellebrite/NSO/et al claim they can get into iPhones and Android devices and law enforcement agencies happily buy their products, so someone here is lying.)
This idea is based on empirical evidence.
It’s the truth, however. Blinding yourself to it won’t make governments any less inclined to bend (or outright break) any laws they deem necessary to achieve their goals. We should work to fix that, no question about it, but ignorance will not by itself improve the situation in imaginable any way.
Arrows impossibility theorem means someone will always be unhappy, and sometimes those people make the laws too.
It can be fixed, but not through the same protocols and institutions that have been compromised.