Reasonable people would say, there are no inalienable rights, in extremis we give some up for something else. Anyone can be stopped by the police given a reason

Reasonable people would say, there are no inalienable rights, in extremis we give some up for something else. Anyone can be stopped by the police given a reasonable pretext, for example, despite an ironclad right to freedom. We like it because it saves us from violent people, for example. The government is saying that it is nuking online privacy because children. To argue against, it is not sufficient to say you have a holy and unmovable right to it, because you don't really have a holy unmovable right to anything - everything gives in the end. Personal freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Hence I'm curious about the other side of arguments. The "this is bad because it limits my freedom, yes, AND... doesn't achieve the goals?".