Intellectual technologists may simply disagree with the premise of a law, rather than fail to understand it. You can't create new technologies with a mindset that sees only how things are, not how they could be better.
I think the number of comments saying X is unconstitutional/illegal vs X should be, reflects a failure to understand, not just disagreement. If you want to argue the legal system is based on immoral principles, go for it. If you want to argue the FBI broke the law, go for it. But figure out which argument you're making and don't conflate the two. I see a lot of comments that are basically, "in my perfect legal system, the FBI can't do this, so therefore the FBI can't do this in this legal system."
