4 ms·

The difference in all of your examples is that the government actually cannot compel assistance with the things you described. The government itself can break l

by gergles 11y ago

The difference in all of your examples is that the government actually cannot compel assistance with the things you described. The government itself can break locks, drill safes, break open deposit boxes, of course. But to date, they haven't tried to call Brinks and force them to come explain how to break into a safe. If I were able to somehow develop a file cabinet that was impenetrable, the government would not be able to come compel me to break it open for them. They are allowed to try to break it open, but they cannot compel me to help them. (CALEA requires that systems must be built so that the government can snoop. Cell phones aren't covered by CALEA (the network is)).

rayiner 11y ago
The power of the courts to compel cooperation in civil and criminal investigations predates the Constitution. Courts routinely order banks to drill into safe deposit boxes, for example. They can also force your accountant to hand over records about you and testify against you. The limiting principle is whether the cooperation imposes an "unreasonable burden" on the third party.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  The key differences now are that our devices' activities are more akin to sending a letter through the legally protected US mail, rather than disclosing secrets to untrusted third parties like cell carriers (no reasonable person, upon being shown a text messaging app, would think they were texting their carrier and not their friend). Thus, we expect a much higher standard of proof and accountability for accessing that information than has been applied of late. Second, our devices are becoming effectively cybernetic extensions of our minds, and this cognitive intimacy definitely warrants a new discussion of boundaries that is not burdened by awkward analogies to historic traditions of the courts. Finally, by whatever basis you want to argue (multiple amendments in the bill of rights, etc.), we should not be forced to deny the effectiveness of mathematics. We should have the right to use whatever algorithmic and physical security mechanisms we desire to guard ourselves against hackers, thieves, and foreign spies. If that slows the local spies down too, they'll just have to find some other way to do their jobs, and reconsider whether the scope and scale of their activities was appropriate to begin with.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    > Second, our devices are becoming effectively cybernetic extensions of our minds, and this cognitive intimacy definitely warrants a new discussion of boundaries that is not burdened by awkward analogies to historic traditions of the courts. I guess I just don't believe this.[1] Courts have always been able to compel say your friend or girlfriend to reveal your darkest secrets--stuff that you'd never even write down--but your text messages should be treated differently? It's not like cognitive intimacy didn't exist before electronic devices. [1] As far as sci-fi philosophy goes, my go-to is WWHIS (What Would Happen in Star Trek). You think the Federation can't compel someone to assist in decrypting a computer?
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      Don't mix the separate points I was making. Text messages are like mail, other device use is like thought, imagination, or memory. I also notice you didn't mention spouses, which are treated differently from friends, and did not address the third point about encryption. I'm also not making an argument from sci-fi, I'm talking about reality today. Star Trek (especially TNG) has a lot of great morality plays and valuable lessons can be learned from it, but the vast majority of the action we see takes place on a military-like vessel and can't inform us about how to structure a total population. But this is all beside the point that we are experiencing the melding of our minds and our devices right now.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        > other device use is like thought, imagination, or memory And I'm saying I don't buy that. My phone isn't an "extension of my brain" (that's what I'm calling sci-fi philosophy). It's a replacement for my phone, calendar/notebook, and camera, which are all things that have been subject to search with a warrant. > I also notice you didn't mention spouses, which are treated differently from friends But not for reasons relevant to your argument. Spousal privilege exists not to protect privacy but to protect marriage. The rationale is that you shouldn't turn spouses on each other. It dates to a time when spouses were considered the same legal person. I didn't address your point about encryption because I don't disagree with it. But banning encryption isn't directly at issue here. Star Trek is always relevant. It imagines a future society where people achieve prosperity through a very powerful, sometimes fallible, but basically benevolent government. It's an ode to the righteous power of Institutions. It's a compelling alternative to the anarchic leanings of much of modern sci-fi.
- salgernon 11y ago
  Hi, who did you vote for in the previous US presidential election? Primary? To what god[s] do you pray? According to you, you see no problem in being compelled by court order in revealing this information. Because terrorism. I don't believe that any government has the right to compel you to reveal your heart or private thoughts. Another commenter said that you believe that torture can be justified - so maybe you really do believe that you can be compelled to finally acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 5, and that this is an acceptable outcome. Your profile indicates that you're a lawyer - so if the court orders you to turn over confidential client files, you have no problem with that?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

by gergles 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

The power of the courts to compel cooperation in civil and criminal investigations predates the Constitution. Courts routinely order banks to drill into safe deposit boxes, for example. They can also force your accountant to hand over records about you and testify against you. The limiting principle is whether the cooperation imposes an "unreasonable burden" on the third party.

nitrogen 11y ago
The key differences now are that our devices' activities are more akin to sending a letter through the legally protected US mail, rather than disclosing secrets to untrusted third parties like cell carriers (no reasonable person, upon being shown a text messaging app, would think they were texting their carrier and not their friend). Thus, we expect a much higher standard of proof and accountability for accessing that information than has been applied of late. Second, our devices are becoming effectively cybernetic extensions of our minds, and this cognitive intimacy definitely warrants a new discussion of boundaries that is not burdened by awkward analogies to historic traditions of the courts. Finally, by whatever basis you want to argue (multiple amendments in the bill of rights, etc.), we should not be forced to deny the effectiveness of mathematics. We should have the right to use whatever algorithmic and physical security mechanisms we desire to guard ourselves against hackers, thieves, and foreign spies. If that slows the local spies down too, they'll just have to find some other way to do their jobs, and reconsider whether the scope and scale of their activities was appropriate to begin with.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > Second, our devices are becoming effectively cybernetic extensions of our minds, and this cognitive intimacy definitely warrants a new discussion of boundaries that is not burdened by awkward analogies to historic traditions of the courts. I guess I just don't believe this.[1] Courts have always been able to compel say your friend or girlfriend to reveal your darkest secrets--stuff that you'd never even write down--but your text messages should be treated differently? It's not like cognitive intimacy didn't exist before electronic devices. [1] As far as sci-fi philosophy goes, my go-to is WWHIS (What Would Happen in Star Trek). You think the Federation can't compel someone to assist in decrypting a computer?
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Don't mix the separate points I was making. Text messages are like mail, other device use is like thought, imagination, or memory. I also notice you didn't mention spouses, which are treated differently from friends, and did not address the third point about encryption. I'm also not making an argument from sci-fi, I'm talking about reality today. Star Trek (especially TNG) has a lot of great morality plays and valuable lessons can be learned from it, but the vast majority of the action we see takes place on a military-like vessel and can't inform us about how to structure a total population. But this is all beside the point that we are experiencing the melding of our minds and our devices right now.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      > other device use is like thought, imagination, or memory And I'm saying I don't buy that. My phone isn't an "extension of my brain" (that's what I'm calling sci-fi philosophy). It's a replacement for my phone, calendar/notebook, and camera, which are all things that have been subject to search with a warrant. > I also notice you didn't mention spouses, which are treated differently from friends But not for reasons relevant to your argument. Spousal privilege exists not to protect privacy but to protect marriage. The rationale is that you shouldn't turn spouses on each other. It dates to a time when spouses were considered the same legal person. I didn't address your point about encryption because I don't disagree with it. But banning encryption isn't directly at issue here. Star Trek is always relevant. It imagines a future society where people achieve prosperity through a very powerful, sometimes fallible, but basically benevolent government. It's an ode to the righteous power of Institutions. It's a compelling alternative to the anarchic leanings of much of modern sci-fi.
salgernon 11y ago
Hi, who did you vote for in the previous US presidential election? Primary? To what god[s] do you pray? According to you, you see no problem in being compelled by court order in revealing this information. Because terrorism. I don't believe that any government has the right to compel you to reveal your heart or private thoughts. Another commenter said that you believe that torture can be justified - so maybe you really do believe that you can be compelled to finally acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 5, and that this is an acceptable outcome. Your profile indicates that you're a lawyer - so if the court orders you to turn over confidential client files, you have no problem with that?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]