That's not the point you were making, actually. At least, it's not the interesting one. I admitted checks and balances are imperfect, and that's not really co

That's not the point you were making, actually. At least, it's not the interesting one. I admitted checks and balances are imperfect, and that's not really controversial. To say otherwise, I believe, is to try detract from the actual implications and make them seem more benign and less dangerous That's your point. And I think it's a bit silly. Saying "the FBI wants to break into the iPhone" instead of "the government wants to break into the iPhone" is just more precise. It doesn't imply there's any less of a problem. The fact that you have other parts of the government to appeal to, and which may disagree with the first part of the government, is important! If you're involved it gives you a hint as to how you might proceed. It tells us which parts of the government we might have to restrict or promote. What, pray tell, is the advantage of thinking of all these different and differing institutions as one monolithic entity, or of calling them "the government" as if they were?