> It factually does exceed that right and that fact does not yield a panopticon. Poor analogy. The panopticon analogy was to relate the fact that allowing insp

> It factually does exceed that right and that fact does not yield a panopticon. Poor analogy. The panopticon analogy was to relate the fact that allowing inspection of every single message sent by everyone ever is a panopticon. Preventing someone from speaking doesn't equate to a panopticon. I am very concerned for the worldviews of people who genuinely think it's a good idea to let the government (and consequently, any entity with moderately-skilled hackers and a motive to mass collect data) view every message sent between private parties. So I'll reiterate, I guess. No, it doesn't.