> but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. But this isn't the police's

> but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you. But this isn't the police's right, it's our right(s) that we're voluntarily ceding to the government such that it can practically provide us our basic security. > Why should your smartphone be different? Because it is different. I can't backup a car, or encrypt one, etc. Traditional possessions didn't record your GPS location and didn't contain all your private and banking info and couldn't be turned into remote listening devices and so forth. So far we're seeing traditional law enforcement having a pretty good record against even high-tech criminals. They caught DPR with legwork and correlating multiple tails to figure out who was who. Even though he took extreme measures most of the time a few mistakes took him down. So, with the thought in mind that nobody fights harder than for their budget, we should have discussions with our security forces and reevaluate our needs; see just how much of the physical world's laws usefully translate and what needs to be revamped. Evaluate what we can reasonably hope to achieve at what cost. The laws don't own us, we own them. The discussion needs to be "What should the laws say?".