Would it be fair to paraphrase what you saying like this: The U.S. Bill of Rights are not 100% absolute; therefore, people/courts/whatever are not going to acce

Would it be fair to paraphrase what you saying like this: The U.S. Bill of Rights are not 100% absolute; therefore, people/courts/whatever are not going to accept a right to unbreakable crypto that's even stronger than those in the Bill of Rights? I don't think that crypto needs to be a stronger right than the Bill of Rights (confining myself to U.S. laws for the purpose of this discussion). What I'm saying is that whenever government proposals come up about restricting or backdooring crypto, we techies (and other thought leaders) should take the strong position that this is a right and then--maybe--have discussions about warrants, etc., afterward. What we've been doing for over 20 years is arguing that crypto is necessary for good security and backdooring is bad for security. That's all true, but it's a technology argument. It would be much better if we start off with the premise that unbreakable crypto is a right, that we're allowed to use it, that we don't need permission.