> What's not fundamental is that it should not be used UNLESS you are suspecting a person of wrongdoing with serious facts in the first place. It's never suppos

> What's not fundamental is that it should not be used UNLESS you are suspecting a person of wrongdoing with serious facts in the first place. It's never supposed to be an all-encompassing absolute power. I agree 100%. In this case, the government has a court order for a specific phone used by a specific person who committed a particular crime. What exactly are you arguing against? > There's hardly any data on states that don't exercise such powers, so don't spread the fallacy that the opposite cannot be true. I'm sure there's an interesting discussion to be had about alternatives to the nation-state and how they might control the exercise of violence, which is by definition the fundamental characteristic of any system of government. But we live in a world where this authority is centralized (or sometimes, in federal systems, split between different levels of central authority).