You're right to be skeptical about the courts. While the cypherpunks' victory in the 1990s—which successfully challenged government restrictions on the export of strong encryption as an infringement on free speech—is a powerful example, it's also a product of a specific legal and political moment. It’s hard to ignore that the courts, like other government branches, are influenced by politics and the prevailing legal philosophies of the day. The Third-Party Doctrine is a perfect illustration of this. This legal principle, developed through a series of Supreme Court cases, holds that you have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in information you voluntarily share with a third party, such as your bank, email provider, or social media company. This doctrine has been widely criticized for being out of step with the realities of the digital age, where sharing data with third parties is unavoidable. It shows that the courts can, and do, create legal frameworks that can significantly erode privacy protections.