If nobody is trying to subvert your private communications, you don't need secure private communications in the first place. If you assume you need secure comms, you should assume people will try to subvert and break your secure comms.

"If nobody is trying to search your home, you don't need locks in the first place."

Is that not true?

I think his point is you can never be sure when someone is trying to break in to your house/subvert your communications, so it makes sense to take precautions.

I don't want the government actively working to weaken house lock standards for a lot of the same reasons I don't want them working to subvert privacy technology.

Admittedly, in this case the metaphor is kind of flawed since SR2 is the equivalent of a drug dealer's home, which the Feds would have no qualms about breaking in to.

Iceland has an interesting mechanism related to this. Some driveways have a gate with one vertical post on each side, and three removable horizontal beams. If the beams are moved aside, you may enter. If all three beams are hung in place, you must not enter. If two beams are up, you should seek permission to enter. That's how I remember it, anyway.

The point being, yes, you do need a lock or some mechanism to say "outsiders should stop here." You need this for two reasons: first so that honest people know where they are not welcome, and second so that dishonest people can be shown clearly to have broken a social contract.

This metaphor works well. What about thieves (internet criminals) or nosy passersby (script kiddies)? Don't you need protection against those, too?

You have a right to be outraged over anything you like, one does not follow from the other.

However outrage doesn't do anything. It's not useful. What's useful is a better service for obtaining #1.

Let me rephrase for him,

"Is it reasonable to be outraged..."

i think skip the outrage and kick the cops, thieves and scammers and pedos off the internet.