“So in the same way I’d argue we legalize drugs, why not have a careful, legal pathway to break into a phone?”

There’s no logic to be found here, but I’ll try to provide clarity. This is rather sophisticated psychology. Look at the first clause in the sentence. With regard to just this clause, responses will break down into 4 groups.

1. People who already agree. This is a small subsection of the population, mostly hardcore social libertarians, the occasional honest fiscal conservative who recognizes that the War on Drugs has been a money pit since it’s inception, and of course serious drug users, but probably not abusers. This group reads this clause and sits up and takes notice of the rest of the sentence.

2. People who vehemently disagree. Mostly the sizable minority of Americans who still believe that the War on Drugs is the correct path. They’re not going to agree with the next clause, may even throw the paper away in a rage, but that’s okay with our columnist. One, the overlap between Guardian readers and these people is fairly small. Two, the overlap between these people and people with pathetic/non-existent security is fairly large.

3. People who don’t necessarily agree, but probably agree somewhat (i.e. people who think we should legalize marijuana) and think this is a thought-provoking statement enough to ensure their future attention. This is the only group she actually cares about.

4. People who, like most of the users of this sight are either tech savvy enough or privacy concerned enough (or both), that they were already turned off by the earlier part of the article. They’ve already decided the writer is either an idiot or complicit in the erosion of our privacy. Now, they’re just reading to find out what complete nonsense the writer will spout next.

This is called “turning the tip” in carny/circus shows and con games. It’s basically the process of figuring out who among the crowd will buy tickets/is hooked on the con, and sloughing the rest.

Each group will have one of 4 reactions to second clause.

Parts of group 1 (mostly everyone but the drug users), a small section of group 3, and all of groups 2 & 4, will disagree with the second clause because: a. it doesn’t fit with their preconceptions, b. they’re so angry they going to disagree with everything she writes or, c. like Tim, they’re too rational not to spot the logical fallacy. Those people are the slough.

The remainder of group 1 (mostly drug users), and most of group 3, will fail to spot that there’s no logical connection between the first clause and the second. They’ll read the second clause where she uses the keywords “careful” and “legal,” which most Americans and most of the Western World have come to associate with feelings of safety and security. It’s the sales/persuasion section of neuro-linguistic programming. In this case, using words we have a subconscious association for to bolster confidence in what comes next. If she achieves this confidence, these people will overlook the negative association they have for the phrase “break into” that comes after.

A minority of group 3 won’t fall for the word trap. They will just walk away feeling shaken, a little confused, and uncertain of their opinion, which will probably make it easier to convince them the next time someone presents a similar argument.

So, you were right, Tim; there’s no logic to it at all, but hopefully this gives some clarity.