Requiring manufacturers to include back doors to be used only pursuant to a valid warrant would not be a “search.” (There might be a commerce clause issue, though.) Many types of surveillance typically does not involve a search (because it relies on data that either can be gleaned from public activity or through cooperating third parties).

I would consider that a first amendment violation on the basis of code being speech and a backdoor being compelled speech.

Code can have elements of speech, but it’s primarily functional, and that functionality can be regulated. A building can be art, but that doesn’t mean building codes can’t be used to e.g. require parking accommodations.

I believe he’s talking about “the right to privacy”

Mass surveillance is unreasonable search. Court-ordered passphrase disclosures are compelled speech and forced self-incrimination. Equipment is seized from innocent people willy-nilly.

The "right to privacy" refers to a bundle of other rights the state is already spitting all over in direct and obvious violation of the Constitution, and our judiciary is wasting the blood of our great nation's many dead martyrs.

That said, I believe privacy is such a lost cause at this point rayiner might still be arguing effectively for our remaining rights by throwing it to the dogs while they're sniffing for our guns.

RBG and the privileges and immunities clause will win sooner or later with that attitude

This guy's a T14 lawyer, maybe we're both missing something.

O majestic scholarship how elusive you are! I thought I knew you and yet you are my world!