That said it is difficult to say that any telecommunications device is actually secure. The hardware it-self could be configured to make breaking encryption performed on it easier. Simpler yet to allow access to any communication or storage pre-encryption.
Once we fall into that rabbit hole though you had best be prepared to make your own chips to put in your home brewed HAM equipment because it's turtles all the way down.
Libertarian's are typically small government. They adopt those policies from the standpoint of personal liberty though. They believe you should have the right to smoke, believe, say, or sleep with whatever or whomever makes you happy so long as the consequences of your actions are mainly yours to bare.
The Libertarian social platform is far more leftwing than the Democrats (if you can even call Dem's left wing these days). What they typically are not is progressive. Libertarians were the first political party in the nation to adopt same sex marriage as an issue, in the 70's. I'm not that old and I've been around long enough to have heard Democrats call them insane for it.
That said it would be against Libertarian philosophy to use the power of the government to punish say a caterer for refusing to cater a same sex marriage. That is usually where the Dem's and Libertarians part ways.
Read about FIDO U2F to better inform yourself of the options that exist and where things should be heading.
If you where to create a simulation advanced enough to create sentient inhabitants (likely as a byproduct of it's full purpose) it stands to reason that it would be based off tech far in advanced to our own current levels. Even now we are working on developing systems that move beyond simple binary decision making. I would imagine the system having a rule keeping AI with the universal physic programed into it and allowing all other AI's in the environment to grow organically (so to speak).
For instance some people now theorize the entire universe could be a giant computer simulation. In such an environment some decisions could be left to free will while others are hard coded (not that I actually believe we are all sims). We can theorize the purpose of such a system would be to ensure some specific conditions in the sim are met.
Even in a far more likely base organic reality it's feasible that some processes may be genetically hard coded into our actions while others are not.
I've given this matter a lot of thought and I believe what we see is the result of people generally being unable to accurately and easily understand complex issues outside their field of expertise. When this occurs it seems to be human nature to defer to a trusted authority when forming ones opinions.
We see this in all sorts of issues like climate change (I see it equally on both sides of the debate) where the majority of people are arguing from "facts" that are given to them instead any real understanding of the science. Their knowledge in the area is only deep enough to allow them to parse the opinions of the trusted authority.
For most of modern history the US government has been considered a defacto trusted authority on legal matters. When a congressman doesn't talk about an issue or just regurgitates some talking points their constituents take that as everything they need to know about the issue.
I think it's always been this way. The change has been in trustworthiness of our "Trusted Authorities" and the ease with which dissenting opinions can be presented with equal ease.
An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"