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?