>Here's the frustrating bit for me though: the FBI going to the courts, getting a court order, and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime".
The frustrating bit for me is that many people believe that a courts power is unlimited and that simply by virtu of the FBI obtaining a rubber stamp from a court it makes their demand A OK... makes their demand ethical, moral, or constitutional.
The frustrating bit for me is that many people on the side of the FBI believe because people died in a terrorist act that justifies any loss of privacy and liberty for anyone now and in the future.
>and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite
Actually it is not. Almost all Authoritarian Surveillance Regime are perfectly legal, and have the full blessing of the Law and Courts in their jurisdictions. In fact by having a courts approval, and the authorization under law that makes it a surveillance STATE the key requirement of a surveillance state is said surveillance happens legally.
>Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"?
Yes. There seems to be an idea that the FBI is entitled to, has a right to all information at all times provided it ordered by a court somewhere. This flies in the face of historical fact. Never in human history has law enforcement had more information about its citizen, the needle is HEAVILY pointed in favor of the government, Encryption gives the citizens some limited authority to take that back. This idea that the government is entitled to know everything about you under court order is naive and not based in reality or history.