4 ms·

> keeping them from having this power does not make their jobs more difficult than the 200 year baseline. I don't think that's entirely accurate. The problem i

> keeping them from having this power does not make their jobs more difficult than the 200 year baseline. I don't think that's entirely accurate. The problem is that the content they were looking for 200, 100, and even 20 years ago used to be physical. Now it's digital. Previously when they searched your home, they'd be looking for physical evidence -- mail, letters, receipts, paraphernalia, what have you. Today, a lot of that information has moved to electronic devices, taking what was once safeguarded by your front door, and putting it behind a new electronic lock. I'm not commenting specifically on what powers should or shouldn't be available to law enforcement, but I think it's pretty clear that the situation has changed from 200 years ago, and we should be making decisions in the current context.

Arainach 11y ago
It's more complicated than that, however. The amount of data contained in a phone is stunning. Communication logs, location logs, metadata - at no point in history was it so simple to obtain so much information from a single object. The standards for evidence collection need to be higher here.
marris 11y ago
Of the examples that you list above, I agree that communication (what would have previously happened with letters) has mainly moved to the net. To the extent that receipts have moved, the government has access (either directly or through a subpoena) to many forms of electronic records. My original point was that in criminal cases, there is a treasure trove of physical evidence available to the government, and the value of this evidence has been under-weighted in discussions about encryption. - If the suspect has dangerous equipment or substances at that location, then the government can gain access to and analyze those physical materials. - If the suspect received deliveries to his address, then the government can get records from FexEx, UPS, USPS. - If the suspect used a phone, the government can get access to carrier calls (I agree that this may not be possible for app-based calls). - If the government finds credit cards used by the suspect (either by finding the physical card or by using the purchase history of any cars, residences, or other tools used by the suspect), then they can search the history of those cards.

Arainach 11y ago

It's more complicated than that, however. The amount of data contained in a phone is stunning. Communication logs, location logs, metadata - at no point in history was it so simple to obtain so much information from a single object. The standards for evidence collection need to be higher here.

marris 11y ago

Of the examples that you list above, I agree that communication (what would have previously happened with letters) has mainly moved to the net. To the extent that receipts have moved, the government has access (either directly or through a subpoena) to many forms of electronic records. My original point was that in criminal cases, there is a treasure trove of physical evidence available to the government, and the value of this evidence has been under-weighted in discussions about encryption. - If the suspect has dangerous equipment or substances at that location, then the government can gain access to and analyze those physical materials. - If the suspect received deliveries to his address, then the government can get records from FexEx, UPS, USPS. - If the suspect used a phone, the government can get access to carrier calls (I agree that this may not be possible for app-based calls). - If the government finds credit cards used by the suspect (either by finding the physical card or by using the purchase history of any cars, residences, or other tools used by the suspect), then they can search the history of those cards.