I agree with everything you've said, but it's still not an "appeal to authority" argument.

For example: "You should vote Joe for Sheriff because my uncle--who is a private detective and knows these things--says to."

That said, logical fallacy discussions are irrelevant to your actual point: Keeping logs implies you trust the government entirely. Not keeping logs implies you trust your users entirely. Neither option is healthy for the other in and of themselves and requires "everyone else" (aka civilization) to be doing their jobs to stop bad guys and/or governments.

Tricky stuff.

His argument is literally "it's ok because they are an authority."

> Not keeping logs implies you trust your users entirely.

No. It means your business is to provide a proxy service, and not to monitor what users do with it. Trust has nothing to do with anything.

It's a special type of ignorance to say, "well, governments won't overreach, they're here to help" if you've been alive before and after 9/11.

I am inclined to agree, but this isn't an example of appeal to authority[1] it's just a willingness to believe in the status quo ("police should always be able to catch the bad guys, shouldn't they?").

1: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...

"I don't have an issue with obeying a valid warrant" does not imply that the government is always "just, law abiding, and acting in everyone's interest." I would strongly disagree with the latter while agreeing with the former.

It implies that either:

1) You're capable of discerning what is, or is not, a valid warrant, or

2) You trust the L.E. to do so for you.

Which?

These are not exhaustive options. The name of the logical fallacy you're committing here is a "false dilemma". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I cannot discern what is or is not a valid warrant. That's why companies have lawyers. I don't trust law enforcement to do this either. That's why we have courts. There's a lot of room for nuanced opinions about our warrant system not being perfect but being better than nothing.

"You" implies your organization. You and your corporate attorneys are on the same team.

No logical fallacy, simply a strict reading of the words chosen.

Correction made, what's the third option, if those aren't exhaustive?

One other option is that I trust the courts. Another is that I don't trust law enforcement or the courts but I still think that an imperfect rule of law is better than not being able to have warrants at all. These things don't have to be absolute.

I said "valid warrant." If I found the warrant to be an over-reach, was on a flimsy pretext, or the request is not properly scoped I wouldn't consider that valid, and would appeal.

"Your appeal has been denied."

You're still considering a just and fair government/system, you've just moved the "just and fair" bit from "the police" to "the judge issuing the warrant". There are a fair number of people who have absolutely no trust in their (or any) government and consider the potential for government overreach. The best way to prevent government overreach is to make sure there is nothing they can reach for.

Some people have no issue with the government knowing their "harmless personal activities". While another group of some people believe the government has absolutely no right to know what's going on in their personal lives no matter how mundane.