If I encrypt something, I have taken an explicit, extra step to keep it private. Seems very significant to me.
Not if your bright line rule is based on “intrusion into the home.”
Of course, there are other grounds for privacy as well - which is why focusing so strongly on a bright line rule of intrusion isn’t as workable as it might seem, though. If I cover the windows of my dope growery, in the knowledge that the only people who can see the IR trace are the government (or the limited number of private individuals with access to IR sensitive equipment), how is that different to encrypting a cell phone, in the knowledge that the only people who can decrypt it are the government (or the limited number of private individuals with access to high level cracking software)?
Breaking an encryption code is not “sense-enhancing technology”.
That is certainly true.
But I think you need a little more than that to get to a relevant distinction for the purpose of the law.
No more so than taking a conversation indoors, which (under Bricker’s analysis) would not invoke any protected privacy right.
Why do you care what my analysis is?
That was true until 2010, when suddenly Senate candidates are supposed to be “just like you”. 