While I'm all for the idea that sometimes you have to make do with what tools you have available, why are we looking for technical solutions to a legal (or perhaps even philosophical) problem?
Philosophically and legally I am firmly convinced that we should treat information, and therefore data, as an extension of consciousness. Information is only meaningful because we have the conscious capacity to interpret it; digital data is a "memory aid", a tool we use to expand our everyday capacity to interact with information. Data is not analogous to a physical object; any discussion about ownership, or transfer rights (and so forth) is inherently based on a flawed premise.
Directly descendant from that argument is that privacy is irrelevant, that instead, individual agency is what matters. Privacy is a decision not to share information, but that means privacy is only possible given the agency to make that decision. Any serviceable definition of information agency implies, at the very least, having control over the creation, retention, and sharing of data, which is so much more than privacy. And when you start looking at it that way, it becomes clear that our conversations around incidents like OP's link should happen around the fifth amendment, and not the fourth.
When I talk to tech people about this, they (typically) emphatically agree. When I talk to lawyers about it, their response is much less enthusiastic: "That's an interesting perspective, but it's not really supported by existing case law." If all we're doing is piling technical circumventions on top of bad policy, we're stuck in an arms race. What we need is a shift in legal attitudes towards information; that's the only sustainable outcome here. We need a cogent legal and philosophical argument, one rooted in existing, accepted principles, that makes a solid case for a new paradigm surrounding data.