4 ms·

I'd say: first throw out the ability for NSA to spy without letting the persons concerned speak about it. Then we can talk about 'warrants in the case of probab

I'd say: first throw out the ability for NSA to spy without letting the persons concerned speak about it. Then we can talk about 'warrants in the case of probable cause'. US as a country has lost a lot of goodwill and trust. And don't forget: - number of deaths from acts of domestic terrorism: 36 - number of deaths–homicide, suicide, and accidental–caused by firearms: 316,545 (in a decade, link: http://magazine.good.is/articles/president-obama-gun-deaths-terrorism-numbers http://magazine.good.is/articles/president-obama-gun-deaths-...) It's hilarious how some people forget what really counts (as in pain and sorrow) and where the priorities should be.

wyager 11y ago
And, for scale, the number of deaths caused by obesity in the same period is over 3,000,000.
quaunaut 11y ago
You think this stuff is just anti-terrorism? The whole reason I even MENTIONED the idea of a warrant is specifically for normal policework. It's the same as searching someone's house after a murder's taken place- just now, instead of reading their files, it's all in a secure place in their computer. Having a reasonable way to read that stuff(WITHOUT USING A BACKDOOR. I don't want weaker crypto just for this- but businesses hosting this stuff always have their proprietary ways of handling things) is just a continuation of previous law.
- sloppycee 11y ago
  Why is it considered different from a physical safe? The government already has the ability and laws to compel citizens to provide access, why should it be any different with encryption?
  - cvwright 11y ago
    It shouldn't be any different. In fact there have been court cases in which individuals have been compelled to provide decryption keys for encrypted disks. The difference here is that the government wants vastly more access in the digital world than they have in the analog world. It's like asking all safe makers to include a secret combination, unknown to the safe's owner, that can also be used to unlock the safe.

wyager 11y ago

And, for scale, the number of deaths caused by obesity in the same period is over 3,000,000.

quaunaut 11y ago

You think this stuff is just anti-terrorism? The whole reason I even MENTIONED the idea of a warrant is specifically for normal policework. It's the same as searching someone's house after a murder's taken place- just now, instead of reading their files, it's all in a secure place in their computer. Having a reasonable way to read that stuff(WITHOUT USING A BACKDOOR. I don't want weaker crypto just for this- but businesses hosting this stuff always have their proprietary ways of handling things) is just a continuation of previous law.

sloppycee 11y ago
Why is it considered different from a physical safe? The government already has the ability and laws to compel citizens to provide access, why should it be any different with encryption?
- cvwright 11y ago
  It shouldn't be any different. In fact there have been court cases in which individuals have been compelled to provide decryption keys for encrypted disks. The difference here is that the government wants vastly more access in the digital world than they have in the analog world. It's like asking all safe makers to include a secret combination, unknown to the safe's owner, that can also be used to unlock the safe.