[marrs]

I broadly agree with what you're saying. I think both cases could be argued as constitutional because they both protect sovereignty in different ways: the right to privacy protects you in your own home, the right to gather intelligence protects you in public (or so the argument goes).

I think the larger problem is that the British people either don't care about - or don't understand the implications of - losing encryption. Either they don't believe their privacy will be affected or they don't imagine that they have anything to hide from the 3rd parties, be it the authorities, corporations, or criminals.

I suppose one could argue that the British constitution is working correctly as it is malleable enough to flex with attitudes, but we also know that the attitudes of politicians are diverging quite substantially from the people they claim to represent.

I also wonder if the constitution itself has become increasingly weak and irrelevant, and if it has, is that because the Monarchy, whose sole purpose is to live and breath the constitution, have become increasingly weak and irrelevant.