is that quote any more of short-circuit than using the phrases law enforcement agencies or governments as a pejorative?
I mean, isn't it fairly legitimate for law enforcement agencies or governments to criticize software which facilitates crime, or stops those agencies from stopping it?
People always reflexively dismiss this argument, but crime is a real issue.
Crime is arbitrarily defined. For example, in the UAE, possessing porn is a crime; would you want to go to jail if the authorities found an explicit picture on your phone?
Also, LEA and govts routinely abuse their powers in the name of fighting "crime" or "terrorism" or whatever is the newest thing they can scare people with. It is only reasonable to assume malintent in their propaganda.
Just because certain behaviors aren't universally criminalized didn't mean law is arbitrary. If someone shot your family you would no doubt not think laws against homicide are arbitrary.
Moreover, misuse of a thing does not invalidate the proper use of the thing, a principle which also applies to legislation and law enforcement.
You're running into the distinction between natural rights and legal rights. You possess certain rights because you are a human being. One of those is the right to life. You could be in a place with no recognized law, but you can be damn sure that murder would still be punished.
I mean, isn't it fairly legitimate for law enforcement agencies or governments to criticize software which facilitates crime, or stops those agencies from stopping it?
People always reflexively dismiss this argument, but crime is a real issue.