3 ms·

I imagine they spent a lot of time solving crimes, asking questions like: "Where did they keep all their papers and correspondence?" "Can somebody come break

I imagine they spent a lot of time solving crimes, asking questions like: "Where did they keep all their papers and correspondence?" "Can somebody come break into this safe we have a warrant for?" What did the cops do before X was invented? They didn't worry about X being used to commit or cover up criminal activities while continuing to try to do their job of keeping communities either safe or oppressed, depending on how well they related to them. I support strong crypto, but I think implying detectives and the DoJ are just too lazy or dumb or whatever to deal with this problem is a little unfair. Apologies if that wasn't the implication

yorwba 9y ago
Except in most circumstances, there wouldn't have been any papers, because nobody was recording all their conversations. Nowadays, everything is happening digitally and is stored indefinitely by default; and law enforcement feels like they deserve access to all that. The attempts at preventing ubiquitous encryption don't seem to be focused on crimes where there would have been a paper trail if people still used paper; they are focusing on reconstructing the last year or so of someone who is either dead or uncooperative, all in hopes of finding something they can use. If they were targeting organizations with a bureaucracy for some crime, I think they could just demand access to all documents and get them? If I remember correctly, in the Levandowski case Google's lawyers got access to a huge trove of Uber's internal emails. If a private company can get that access, it should be possible for law enforcement as well, no?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]