5 ms·

I as a private citizen do not want the government to have access to my files. Period. End of story. They have zero right to have access to every aspect of my li

I as a private citizen do not want the government to have access to my files. Period. End of story. They have zero right to have access to every aspect of my life. Any "solution" that involves any government the ability to access encrypted files is not encryption, but a lie.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
And that's where I have to disagree. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution That's a balance, of between "Get off my lawn", and "I affirm I saw X illegal thing and I swear it in front of a judge, and the judge agreed." Now, I don't trust some bureaucratic department to honor the constitution. And from the sounds of it, neither do you. Which is why I was keeping in mind of having an antagonist based key-holding scheme which would require a multitude of people to unlock before the data would be unsealed. To me, that does re-enable the balance set forth in the Constitution, namely the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
- matwood 9y ago
  I actually think for objects like phones, the 5th amendment should apply. Phones contain way more information about a person than any other medium in history. It contains so much information that I think we should consider it an extension of the person. At some point we will have devices actually embedded in our bodies collecting every thought. Should those not be considered part of us and thus protected under the 5th amendment?
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  I personally consider parts of the contents of my computer to actually be an extension of my mind. A daily diary for instance. Once we get to the point where we have computer chips embedded in our skull, this will be literally true. What should be considered part of one's mind is not clear, but what is clear is that whatever the mind is, no one should be able to pry without consent. Not commenting on what the constitution actually means, just saying what I think it should mean.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

And that's where I have to disagree. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution That's a balance, of between "Get off my lawn", and "I affirm I saw X illegal thing and I swear it in front of a judge, and the judge agreed." Now, I don't trust some bureaucratic department to honor the constitution. And from the sounds of it, neither do you. Which is why I was keeping in mind of having an antagonist based key-holding scheme which would require a multitude of people to unlock before the data would be unsealed. To me, that does re-enable the balance set forth in the Constitution, namely the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

matwood 9y ago
I actually think for objects like phones, the 5th amendment should apply. Phones contain way more information about a person than any other medium in history. It contains so much information that I think we should consider it an extension of the person. At some point we will have devices actually embedded in our bodies collecting every thought. Should those not be considered part of us and thus protected under the 5th amendment?
loup-vaillant 9y ago
I personally consider parts of the contents of my computer to actually be an extension of my mind. A daily diary for instance. Once we get to the point where we have computer chips embedded in our skull, this will be literally true. What should be considered part of one's mind is not clear, but what is clear is that whatever the mind is, no one should be able to pry without consent. Not commenting on what the constitution actually means, just saying what I think it should mean.