I'm not even going to address the Matt Blaze issue as far as it's self serving irresponsibility.
What I will briefly address is the assertion by his proponents that papers like his force industries to "build a better mousetrap".
Safes, good ones at least, effectively to their job. They protect ones property by keep unwanted individuals out, or at least slowing them waaaaay down at gaining access to what is not theirs.
Let me ask this... Is it realistic to believe that someone could (theoretically) build an "impenetrable safe"? And if they did who would want it?
Think about it. If the lock malfunctioned, do you just throw out the safe along with everything inside it? Yeah, this is a ridiculous question, but is it any more ridiculous than expecting someone to design ANYTHING that no one could get into under any circumstances?