[redy]

It's because there is no meaningful parallel. Conversations are not economic transactions. Period. You can try to stretch analogies ("walking is illegal because of traffic lights!1") but that's stupid and unhelpful.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to private communications. This is the problem. Period. The 4th amendment was sacrificed during the anti-drug/anti-black eighties. Right now the moment information leaves your home -- whether its a phone call or a letter or a bitcoin transaction -- the government has the right to intercept that. They don't even need a warrant in practice.

It's going to require a Constitutional amendment, really a new 4th amendment, that will clearly and unambiguously extend privacy to a person's communication and data. Complaining about taxes on barter isn't going to help and is nothing but distraction.

[Jabanga]

Of course they're different: private communications are not economic interactions, but both are private interactions between mutually consenting parties. So there are parallels.

That people choose to deny any link is not surprising.

Like I said, society has accepted these classes of restrictions on private interaction, and that means it will be very hard to make a coherent argument against prohibiting private communication. Such arguments will be hobbled by arbitrary judgments that this private interaction ought to be free from interference, invasion or censor, while this other private interaction should not. Cognitive dissonance will make a concerted push against prohibitions on private communication difficult.

As for the US Constitution, that only relates to the US. The global question will be decided by the majority's perception of the morality of right to privacy and autonomy.