And to point out another flaw of the proposed analogy.
I am not against locking things down.
The CURRENT LEGAL system has legal channels to "lock things down".

If the police or FBI have enough evidence of potential wrong-doing and they want to invade a person's privacy, they GET A WARRANT to do so.
I am fully behind the warrant.
This is how we SHOULD be "locking" things.

If there is sufficient reason, you get a warrant.
That's the legal way to do things.
And it's another sign of the weakness of bhkad's position that he REPEATEDLY FAILS to address that fact.