But you don't need to misuse language to assign responsibility. It is their responsibility for breaking the system. Saying the system was always designed for this removes responsibility.
In the past I've heard the second opinion primarily from people who say that a system is intended to work in the way that it does. Which makes the statement tautological: The system is working exactly as it works. I find this view unconvincing.
Because it will show you the error with your argument: Your approach to pronouncing acronyms is likely not consistent with the method you're describing here.
It's not like it has negative consequences. What right do you have to call it poor?