"Because you refuse to understand that we only want suspect communications, not all of them"Yet you are endangering all of the communications, not only the suspect ones. Kinda like having a mandatory camera in every home and promising to access it only when you claim that the person living in the house is a suspect. (Yet always having the ability to access it)
"You won't until there is a problem that alerts the authority."
In that case
* Why is it still illegal then?
* How are you so sure? I remember various cases from the US where they jail someone (usually an african-american) just for having some hashish on them.
* "a problem that alerts the authority" such as your neighbour noticing that you are growing some and calling the police on you, or just ordering some online.
"Yes and yes, add much more."
Kinda hard to believe this anecdote but oh well.
"I've been prosecuted on wrong basis myself, and got out winner, I'm not affraid this is going to change. I trust my state, my police, my judges, who are independent and who will have to issue a mandate based on serious suspicious before they read my communications."
If this is true then I am glad that you are fine, it must have been a very stressful, expensive, and tiresome process. Sadly a lot of people (espesially these living in authoritarian countries or these with a judical system biased towards the prosecutor or the police and against poor people and racial minorities) did not have the same luck.
"that's how present reality works."
No offense but it sounds like propaganda to me. Anyone who has been monitoring the news (or who just check HN once in a while) knows that this is not the case.