I agree with you that the third party doctrine is itself a problem, particularly as more and more of daily life is recorded and conducted through such "third pa

I agree with you that the third party doctrine is itself a problem, particularly as more and more of daily life is recorded and conducted through such "third parties." End to end encryption is one way of fighting back against that regime: if the third party has nothing it can use to respond to a subpoena then that's that. Of course we see here that the government quite likes their access (and sees encryption as standing in the way even of warrant-based access) and so they're stirring to action. I suppose I'm just a pessimist about the prospects of courts stepping in here to "fix" their mistakes (or prevent the legislature from making new ones).