As much as I like the idea that all communications should be confidential, your response doesn't refute the original poster's point, which is that any architect

As much as I like the idea that all communications should be confidential, your response doesn't refute the original poster's point, which is that any architecture that is impervious to eavesdropping would not be adopted by parties who want to impose their desire to eavesdrop on it, which is (according to the original poster) 95% of the world population (and their governments). (citation needed)