If by "weapon against undemocratic reforms" you mean "set of rules"

Full Definition of constitution
1
:  an established law or custom :  ordinance
2
a :  the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body <a hearty constitution>
b :  the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something <the constitution of society>
3
:  the act of establishing, making, or setting up
4
:  the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially :  the manner in which sovereign power is distributed
5
a :  the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
b :  a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization

I think this conversation has deteriorated into gun ownership (seriously, can't people understand that gun ownership in the US is such a complex issue that will never get full consensus across everyone?), and I want to bring it back to the topic of encryption and legality.

Encryption is essential in today's Internet age. Most companies will employ a decent level of encryption (256-bit keys) will be near impossible to break:

"Breaking a symmetric 256-bit key by brute force requires 2128 times more computational power than a 128-bit key. 50 supercomputers that could check a billion billion (1018) AES keys per second (if such a device could ever be made) would, in theory, require about 3×1051 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-for … cal_limits)

Services such as online banking, emails, people's medical details, insurance details, and the list really could just keep going on, are protected from people trying to steal information, whether that is the government or a malicious hacker trying to steal your bank details. Encryption is important. It is also important to ensure the integrity of the encryption key used to encrypt that data.

When we start down a path of encryption should be breakable by the government, it also makes it breakable by malicious people. There is no way that you can create a "backdoor", a method for access encrypted data, or using an encryption method that is breakable, that won't also allow other people to do the same. This is essentially the issue with the Apple vs FBI case, do you protect privacy of all sensitive information, or do you make it easier for ANYONE to see it.

There is more to the story that people don't know, so debating on whether Apple should or shouldn't create a backdoor is somewhat pointless, but we can look at the implications of such an action. Encryption needs protection, otherwise it will undermine the entire purpose of encryption and all of its REASONABLE applications.

Optional for some end users, but not for corporations. Banks for instance require interconnectivity to transfer money. They need to connect to the Reserve Bank in order to share their aggregated transaction details (and if necessary, get loans from the bank). Businesses require connectivity between branches domestically and internationally, and the government share information all around the world. All of these examples aren't optional any more, and privacy and security are essential.

As for security being essential, a company is actually bound by law to protect information that they collect about you from online sources. They must ensure that reasonable actions are taken to ensure the security of information stored. They cannot release this information to a third party without your consent (or under law enforcement actions). The government need to protect their operational data from other nations. You mention that the government should have access to devices they wish to access for the concept of security, but the means that they wish to do it undermines the very technology that the US government uses to protect their own communications.

I know you will touch on the law enforcement part of the comments, so let me also point out that the Apple vs FBI lawsuit is not so much asking for specific information (Apple had cooperated with the investigation, such as giving access to the user's iCloud account, etc) but instead saying "give us access to every iPhone". With such tools/backdoors it is not only the FBI that can access the phone, but anyone else with the same tools/techniques as the FBI. This erodes the very security of EVERY user of an iPhone or iPad, and creates a dangerous precedence that any electronic device should have a backdoor for law enforcement or governmental access. It erodes the very foundation of security for ALL users, and EVEN erodes the very security that the US government use to protect their data.

So NO, the Internet Age is NOT optional for many entities, and undermining encryption WILL undermine the security of EVERY application, including the government's own operations.

It seems more people have this idea
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/snowde … 2016-03-12
http://9to5mac.com/2016/03/09/edward-snowden-fbi-apple/

I am guessing FBI is trying this idea
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/22/ … phone.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/techn … .html?_r=0

All that without needing to give ISIS a key to every iphone in the world.  It's almost like heavy-handed solutions might NOT be the best fix. 

Hey Cook, remember when you said your phones were crap if anybody cracked them ever?

Good times.

I dont know what the May parade has to do with Apple sauce.