> So how DO you disrupt criminal plots, then? Do you allow people to conspire to commit crimes? Suppose they meet in person to conspire. Would you suggest havi

> So how DO you disrupt criminal plots, then? Do you allow people to conspire to commit crimes? Suppose they meet in person to conspire. Would you suggest having every citizen carry un-blockeable microphones just in case? This is not a "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" kinda issue, this is "are we willing to build a police state if it reduced the risk of certain crimes by X%? Even at the cost of creating entry points into all of our communications that can be exploited by unauthorized and misauthorized actors alike..." issue. The ability to retrieve past conversations about conspiracies is a new capability here, not the ability to keep past private conversations secret (that was never as hard in pre-internet/pre-electronic times). The interviewer in the article says: "GREENE: But can you just explain why you would compare, you know, a company helping the government design a way to unlock an iPhone to something extreme as torture and ankle bracelets? I mean, that sounds like a very extreme jump." But actually, an ankle bracelet that reports your location and audio might actually be less invasive of your private conversations in today's world that reporting the contents of your phone.