3 ms·
"The only relevant question is whether encryption/Tor/whatever is or is not currently an evidence for/against being an evildoer, and how strong that evidence is
by pc2g4d 10y ago
"The only relevant question is whether encryption/Tor/whatever is or is not currently an evidence for/against being an evildoer, and how strong that evidence is."
I think we need to be careful not to argue law from probability theory. While as you've pointed out many things will not actually be predictive of "being a terrorist" (whatever that means) there will be things that _are_ predictive. But we mustn't let the predictive nature of the information be in and of itself justification for obtaining it. There needs to be respect for constitutional limits on the reach of government, regardless of what the math says.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoI agree. How you use the information once you have it is not the same as how you obtain it in the first place. I was addressing the use of information, and I do agree that obtaining those signals has a separate set of considerations to take into account. But unless there are strong reasons to do otherwise - for example, what 'wakkaflokka pointed out in a parallel comment may potentially be such a reason - I do think we should derive rigorous conclusions from the data we already have based on math, and not on rhetoric.