Police can and have forged evidence without having to resort to forcing a company to do so. The latter is more risky as there is a greater likelihood of a leak.

I don't exactly disagree in one sense, but this argument seems like it kind of generalizes to the idea that "better is worse", which I can't agree to.

The more technical details of recordkeeping or surveillance that there are, the more likely a frame-up will have flaws that people notice.

I don’t think the argument generalises quite that far, but it does go as far as “more information is worse.” The presumption of innocence is a valuable principle to which this applies. We ignore evidence that suggests that someone is guilty of a crime until the court process has finished, and if they’re “probably guilty” we say they’re actually “not guilty” for fairness reasons.