No, pedantry and fundamental misrepresentations are absurd. That is exactly what you are doing.

Let us start from the top to get this across:

Me:
> "Leave your front door unlocked. Just in case we want to search you for drugs/obscene material/weapons/etc."

I said people have the right to lock their door [encryption key -> encryption software == key -> door].

You:
> Except it isn't. When the FBI has a warrant they are legally entitled to break into your house even if you don't want them to.

Yes, they have the right to break into your phone. That doesn't stop me from having a lockable door. It is perfectly legal and has always been so. There was a fight about it in the 90s with PGP and such.

So you are agreeing with me. Except for the fact you put "except it isn't" without providing any actual proof it isn't. Because y'know, there is no actual proof I'm wrong.

Me:
> The key phrase there is "break in". As in, they acquire access without the consent of the owner. In this case, the "door" is the encryption key which they are expected to acquire and/or break so that they can gain access.

You:
> Your original claim was that you were being asked the equivalent of leaving your house unlocked for their convenience, which is a wild exaggeration.

That isn't a wild exaggeration. Plain text being stored accessibly from the internet is the equivalent of leaving your house unlocked. Its basic, fundamental security. Its why you hash your password and store your backups in an encrypted container.

I don't understand why basic, standard precautions any competent IT person engages in is "wild exaggerations".

Me:
> No, it isn't. If I don't have the ability to prevent 3rd parties from entering my house, it isn't a wild exaggeration.

If strangers can walk into my house without breaking in and do WTF they want, it isn't locked by any sane definition.

You:
> Of course it is. You keep your front door locked, you might have a lockable screen door and bars on the windows, or a burglar alarm or a number of other security precautions, but I'm pretty sure you don't live in an impregnable fortress or a bank vault.

Now that is a wild exaggeration. Encryption is not an impregnable fortress.

Me:
> http://www.wired.com/2013/09/freedom-hosting-fbi/
> 1) The app store is still controlled by the corporation. 2) Malware to capture the key is all that is required. 3) Law enforcement is capable of producing malware competently and legally forcing it onto machines. 4) The corporation can be legally compelled to install said malware via an automatic update [thereby disabling and/or capturing the key]. If that isn't an option, there are various other methods [such as taking the person into custody, installing the malware manually, then releasing them].

A couple of ways in which encryption can be circumvented (malware, two delivery methods)

You:
> This is absurd.

At no point did I say it was "trivial". You've resorted to misrepresentations, putting word in mouth, etc. to argue with me.

The fact you are going to such lengths to argue against an obvious and accurate analogy [in the majority opinion, since I'm being upvoted while you are downvoted] is absurd.

You:
> If I understand you right you just want some additional steps for law enforcement to go through

At no point did I say that. What I have said this whole time is "Same steps as serving a physical warrant? Well, same for technology."

Get Warrant from Judge -> Serve Warrant [Force Entry if required] -> Find Evidence.

That is how physical warrants are handled and it is how digital warrants should be handled. That is how it works for computers too, fyi. Like desktops with full disk encryption.

Is it clear enough now?