> Is absolute security really something that anyone desires from a general purpose instant messenger?
I think the problem is that security is an ongoing conversation between the government and the people. My guess is that most people, if pushed to a firm position, would probably agree with:
a) The government should have the right to look at communication to stop bad things.
b) The government should have to individually prove before an independent court that any one use of that power is justified.
The difficulty is that the government unilaterally broke (b) by having a rubberstamp court and a policy that let them collect everything and choose when to look at it.
And the response to the government's action is to start looking to redress this privately. I.e. a market solution to a perceived deficit of privacy. I suspect that if they had kept (b) intact, there would be much less call for absolute security, and much less of a solid argument for it.