[stoperaticless]

Parallel with front door was appropriate answer:

1. This is default expectation (to have privacy, to have doors)

2. If you go abstract, it’s not too useful (its good to have of control of information sharing/ it’s good having control who access your house)

3. It seems impractical to go into details, due to very many different scenarios, details, expectations. Take a set of different “motivations” (incompetence+personal gain+for terror+for ideology push), multiply it by types of actors (phone manufacturer, government, enemy state, criminals), mix in the possibility that law and approach can be changed/ expanded, while keeping in mind that motivations and actors will change year to year. (One thing when such tool is available for consertive gov., other thing when such tool is available for extreeme right/left gov.)

Parallels do diverge eventually, with door if somebody breaks it you most probably can see it immediately. While negative effects of privacy breach can take years to surface.

[baxtr]

For me it’s a very bad analogy avoiding to give an answer.

Doors and how they’re used is highly cultural and has evolved. There’s nothing “fundamental” you can derive from your mental model of today.

Same goes with bike locks and the like. I used to live in a student town where people simply never locked their bikes. It was a custom of that time and place.