> This is dismissive and glib.

As is your comment.

> And it's the wrong lesson.

It's only the wrong lesson if you believe that making it more difficult for governments to seize and decrypt their own citizens' mobile phones with impunity is not a valid goal.

> the security model for trusted hardware is intrinsically flawed.

It's only intrinsically flawed if you expect absolute perfection.

The fact that some math-based protections may be theoretically better than physical protections does not obviate the utility of physical protections, whether we are discussing computers or phones, or houses or cars.

It has been accepted since before any of us were born that there is no such thing as perfect physical security. Even your putative perfect cryptographic security still relies on the physical security of the plant holding the keys.