I'm not with 'nickpsecurity on this issue, but what you just said is not a valid argument.
Cryptography enables individuals to override the interests of any element of the state, no matter how compelling those interests are.
Any way you read the Fourth Amendment, even the wrong way that implies that the government requires a warrant for any conceivable search, there remains a pathway through which the state can compel the production of data. Congress may have to enact a law to authorize the compulsion, and a judge may need to sign off on the warrant, but at the end of the day, the government has the authority to compel production.
I think cryptography is mostly orthogonal to the Fourth Amendment, but to the extent it isn't, its main implication is that it thwarts the Fourth Amendment.
First, the Constitution as a whole is "addressed" to the government, not the people. That is, the Constitution tells the government what it may do. In the case of the IVth, it tells the government search powers are limited to those allowed by the Constitution.
If the Constitution is amended to say "Government officials may levitate" it does not confer the power to make gravity illegal.
Similarly, if encryption can build an uncrackable "safe" for your documents - moreover one that can be made invisible and deniable - government search powers are as limited by mathematics as they are by gravity. The only difference is that government officials don't actually expect to levitate.
That means when the people invent something that thwarts government power, there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about that. Even less does it say "No, the people can't have that."
My position is that possession and use of cryptography won't protect individuals against government's illegitimate actions if citizens let that governments rogue agencies continually amass more power, surveillance, and control over IT.
If you're against that position, please tell me why crypto alone (not active democracy) is all one needs to be safe against state abuse in a surveillance state that targets crypto users. I'm sure any activists aiding Chinese and North Korean dissidents will appreciate your tips, too. They, like I, have been under the same delusion that TLA's legal power matters and must be dealt with.
It wasn't: that was only the beginning. Democracy, like security, is a process rather than a thing you do once. So, people have to be "eternally vigilant" fighting off advances against their established rights in legislature and in court rulings. People can sit on the sidelines of corruption and have a democracy. That's what's happening now. It's why we're pretty far from the Bill of Rights in practice but still have enough to reform with.
Cryptography enables individuals to override the interests of any element of the state, no matter how compelling those interests are.
Any way you read the Fourth Amendment, even the wrong way that implies that the government requires a warrant for any conceivable search, there remains a pathway through which the state can compel the production of data. Congress may have to enact a law to authorize the compulsion, and a judge may need to sign off on the warrant, but at the end of the day, the government has the authority to compel production.
I think cryptography is mostly orthogonal to the Fourth Amendment, but to the extent it isn't, its main implication is that it thwarts the Fourth Amendment.