And that seems to be the unfortunate truth. Something that has no direct intent can be positioned such that it's creators or users end up in a legal quandary.

And that seems to be the unfortunate truth. Something that has no direct intent can be positioned such that it's creators or users end up in a legal quandary. I don't see how that can move forward in a positive manner - the question is what is questioned next? It seems as though only actors which are threatened by true privacy have a position, and that position includes significant wealth, political power and greed. Those actors set a precedent based on already won battles which don't seem to revolve around facts but, again, money and power. Everyone else is then left to spend "huge sums of money" to defend a position that was never unconstitutional in the first place. Frustrating.