That's a blanket, incorrect generalization. I'm strongly opposed to government crypto backdoors. Cryptography is protected expression under the first amendment

That's a blanket, incorrect generalization. I'm strongly opposed to government crypto backdoors. Cryptography is protected expression under the first amendment. However, there's no participation award for weak crypto systems; you don't get immunity from lawful search under the fourth amendment because you tried (or claimed) to implement strong crypto. If a legal search is possible because you intentionally backdoored your crypto system by giving yourself access to tamper-resistent key derivation hardware on the devices your customers own, then that legal search is ... still legal. The All Writs Act, and this application of it, has been held up by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, much more demanding requirements have repeatedly been supported by the courts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_... The DoJ stated this quite clearly in their response to Apple's public efforts to obfuscate the issue: "... iPhones will only run software cryptographically signed by Apple ... Just because Apple has sold the phone to a customer and that customer has created a passcode does not mean that the close software connection ceases to exist; Apple has designed the phone and software updates so that Apple's continued involvement and connection is required." If Apple didn't hold keys that trump the owner of the device, Apple couldn't aid the government. They do hold those keys, however, and the fourth amendment still applies: they get to assist with a reasonable search.