47 ms·

I don't think e2e crypto circumvents any warrant, in fact it makes it very similar to a warrant for a physical thing at your house. An analogy: Gmail is like

I don't think e2e crypto circumvents any warrant, in fact it makes it very similar to a warrant for a physical thing at your house. An analogy: Gmail is like having a safe at your bank, if the police want something in it, they get a warrant to search your safe. E2E Crypto is like having a safe at home, if they want something in it, they get a warrant to search your house. So I wouldn't say it circumvents any warrants, it just changes who is served said warrant.

sliverstorm 10y ago
Except, the safe in your house can be cracked on a judge's order. Your encrypted machine, on the other hand, does not listen to judges. Ergo, the FBI-unlocking-dead-guy's-iPhone thing, and the key-disclosure thing.
- hx87 10y ago
  > Your encrypted machine, on the other hand, does not listen to judges. My machine doesn't, but I do, unless I am willing to face the consequences of being in contempt of court.
  - michael_fine 10y ago
    Which many members of conspiracies would be more than willing to do, hindering the investigation of organized crime, and (genuine) terrorist cells.
    - voxic11 10y ago
      Good for them.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      That's why we have laws to punish them. If your argument is that they're willing to face the consequences in order to perpetrate their greater crime, then (respectfully) you've missed two crucial points: 1. US legal tradition wholeheartedly rejects the goal of absolute security. Better to suffer a few terrorist attacks than live in a surveillance state (yes, yes ... I know... not the point...) 2. Deterrence, in general, doesn't work against self-sacrificing adversaries. Even if crypto were outlawed, terrorists would still use end-to-end crypto, and refuse to comply with a court order to decrypt.
      - rocqua 10y ago
        Being held in contempt is a very light sentence. Moreover, when a defendant refuses to comply, consequences can only be coercive, not punitive. That means that, e.g. imprisonment is limited, because if 1 year in prison isn't going to coerce you, neither will 10 years. The great issue here is the total unbreakability of crypto when compared to e.g. a safe. Before this, all we had was human memory which is very limited.

sliverstorm 10y ago

Except, the safe in your house can be cracked on a judge's order. Your encrypted machine, on the other hand, does not listen to judges. Ergo, the FBI-unlocking-dead-guy's-iPhone thing, and the key-disclosure thing.

hx87 10y ago
> Your encrypted machine, on the other hand, does not listen to judges. My machine doesn't, but I do, unless I am willing to face the consequences of being in contempt of court.
- michael_fine 10y ago
  Which many members of conspiracies would be more than willing to do, hindering the investigation of organized crime, and (genuine) terrorist cells.
  - voxic11 10y ago
    Good for them.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    That's why we have laws to punish them. If your argument is that they're willing to face the consequences in order to perpetrate their greater crime, then (respectfully) you've missed two crucial points: 1. US legal tradition wholeheartedly rejects the goal of absolute security. Better to suffer a few terrorist attacks than live in a surveillance state (yes, yes ... I know... not the point...) 2. Deterrence, in general, doesn't work against self-sacrificing adversaries. Even if crypto were outlawed, terrorists would still use end-to-end crypto, and refuse to comply with a court order to decrypt.
    - rocqua 10y ago
      Being held in contempt is a very light sentence. Moreover, when a defendant refuses to comply, consequences can only be coercive, not punitive. That means that, e.g. imprisonment is limited, because if 1 year in prison isn't going to coerce you, neither will 10 years. The great issue here is the total unbreakability of crypto when compared to e.g. a safe. Before this, all we had was human memory which is very limited.