[VexXtreme]

Your argument is completely disingenuous - same as the people who are nitpicking and torturing the language in the constitution in order to get what they want.

When people are using the internet, in some contexts there is a certain expectation of privacy, and in others, there is none. If I upload pictures to a public Facebook profile or a hosting website (such as imgur), I certainly don't expect that to be private. It's there and available for everyone to see/observe/collect/record/download/analyze/whatever. However, if I connect to a search provider using HTTPS, and the search provider vehemently claims they do not hand my data over to the government, I certainly don't expect the said provider to hand my data over to the government, or the government to try to subvert and crack the encryption between me and the website.

I think it's high time people stop trying to get what's unfair and immoral by trying to subvert the language. While you may eventually get what you want, it is corrupt and evil. No amount of legal "reinterpreting" changes that.

[fluidcruft]

It seems you make a rather large and unsubstantiated assumption that they are breaking encryption before obtaining authority to search the private content. The whole point of encryption is to remove trust from the communication channel. Encryption that fundamentally relies on messages being ephemeral is a fraud/farce/snake oil.

[VexXtreme]

I understand the individual words in your post but have no idea what you're actually trying to say. Have you thought about running for congress?