I'm of course just a layman, not a law professor or scholar. But I feel it best that we not invoke a "right to privacy" to protect our crypto abilities, when such a "right" apparently does not exist.
However, certain things which _look_ like a "right to privacy" do exist:
I agree with your analysis. It certainly matches what I was taught in law school. The rhetorical point I was making however is that a *practical* not constitutional right to privacy exists as long as your questioner eschews torture. I think it is useful to point out -- in response to government types who assert that "there's no absolute right to privacy" -- that they have actually set aside a zone of privacy by their rejection of torture as an interrogation technique. What this does is to remind listeners that coerced speech has an unsavory history and it turns the argument from one between absolute positions into one in which we are just arguing which sanctions should be applied when. DCF "Note that many governments have officially given up rape and torture as sanctions. (These were once universal.) All we have to do is get them to give up murder, imprisonment, and robbery as sanctions and we'll have civilized them completely."