I dunno man, kinda seems like you ought to either have a right to privacy or not. Surely there's other ways to make a case, without extraordinarily abusable legal strong-arming.
Why should a wealthy person be able to legally afford encrypted communication on a secure device, when 90+% of people can't because they're poor and tech illiterate?
Does our historically unequal society need more information and rights asymmetry between rich and poor? Between privileged and marginalized?
It's unreasonable to expect most people to intuit the distinction you describe.
However, you don't see wealthy people communicating on insecure devices, because they have people to take care of that stuff.
* White-collar crime prosecutions decreased 53.5% from 2011 to 2021.
* Annual losses from white-collar crimes as of 2021 are anywhere from $426 billion to $1.7 trillion. The wide range here is due to the lack of prosecutions.
* There were 4,180 white-collar prosecutions in 2022.
* It’s estimated that up to 90% of white-collar crimes go unreported.
Etc.
- https://www.zippia.com/advice/white-collar-crime-statistics/
***
Responding by edit due to rate limit:
Guys the connection is clear if you think about it.
High-net-worth individuals use encrypted messaging apps more than the general population, without doubt.
They also have far more resources and abilities to fight a subpoena. It's all distinctively unfair and highly misleading to normal people; for very little real reason and with great potential for abuse.
Maybe in the future, creators of encrypted messaging apps will get locked up. I certainly hope not. But this case doesn’t indicate anything one way or another.