You dismiss the question as ridiculous by pointing to the 4th Amendment. But you then seem to hand-wave away all the nuances that are intrinsic to your own argu

You dismiss the question as ridiculous by pointing to the 4th Amendment. But you then seem to hand-wave away all the nuances that are intrinsic to your own argument, and thus make this question not ridiculous at all. If you believe the 4th Amendment should be the answer to the question, then what about the flip side of the 4th Amendment: that it does allow reasonable searches with a warrant. This was the justification for "key escrow" systems in which master keys could only be unlocked with a court order. Do you support this approach? If not, why not? Another question: If you believe the 4A's exclusive role, then do you also agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval? (See Katz v. United States) If not, why do you believe so strongly in constitutional protections but not the equally-constitutionally defined role of the SCOTUS to interpret it? And if you do agree with SCOTUS interpretation, why should E2EE prevent a lawful intercept if directed by the President for national security matters? For the record, I support E2EE, but these are serious issues that can't be hand-waved away. The question is anything but ridiculous.