No, it often is. I don't think I need to cite examples.

I'm not advocating for anarchy, and I haven't given up faith in the justice system as a whole. However, there are still many things that I will not do, despite being legally compelled. Leveraging my relationships, professional or personal, to help an agency with a dirty track record spy on people is among those things.

Statements like this...

> Tell it to a judge. But if you lose, then comply.

...are extremely problematic. You can argue that most of the time, in a social order that you believe to be a net positive, you should comply rather than rebel. But phrasing it as an absolute perpetuates any existing authority, no matter how corrupt, forever. If you are sufficiently confident that the right thing to do, taking into account all the disruption it may cause, is not to comply, then you are still morally obligated not to comply.

What is right and what is legal do not always agree. And yes, that is still true even in a society that theoretically allows for change "through the proper channels". Even in the US, many of the most important changes to the law have been made by breaking it. Again, I don't feel the need to cite examples, since we have entire days of the year to celebrate most of them.

The great thing about technology is that it doesn't have to put up with things like useless warrants. Using encryption is the equivalent to have a reinforced door protecting you from people who want to do harm to you that ignores all warrants and cannot be broken or talked down. Thank god for encryption that works, it literally saves lives from the current crops of tyrannical governments worldwide.