4 ms·

Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I

Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

dogma1138 8y ago
>Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it. If anything the if the US has a trust problems with the government then it should be a yes rather than a no. But anywhere else in the world there is also little to no chance that the population at large would be up for denying the government the ability to have lawful intercept and lawful access to any protected resource during an investigation. In fact you might not want to deny them that right at all because it would essentially shift the majority of the evidence to circumstantial eyewitness testimonies. Because why stop at a phone call? why should a government be able to search your residence? open a safe? read a diary? open your computer? And if you deny them all that then what happens? sure at first the legal system would be in a transition phase where much less people might be convicted because under these new restrictions the prosecution won't be able to meet the bar required for conviction but fairly quickly as soon as conviction rates would drop the legal system would bounce back up and get used to the reality of less evidence and this isn't a good place to be. Any development in forensic sciences and investigatory techniques has prevented innocent people from being charged and convicted just as it helped to convict the guilty (don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's perfect or that mistakes are not being made, but DNA for example had to exonerate as many people that it helped to put in). So I'm not entirely sure we want to go back to the days where people were judged in court based on how many character references they could provide.
- anafh83 8y ago
  Ah okay, we have it backwards. I'm saying that people would allow LE to intercept communications everywhere in the world except in the US!
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    I think i misread the original comment you made then :)

Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.

dogma1138 8y ago

>Maybe, and only maybe, you'd get a no in the US, because of the deeply ingrained hate/distrust for the government. But the rest of the world? Seriously. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it. If anything the if the US has a trust problems with the government then it should be a yes rather than a no. But anywhere else in the world there is also little to no chance that the population at large would be up for denying the government the ability to have lawful intercept and lawful access to any protected resource during an investigation. In fact you might not want to deny them that right at all because it would essentially shift the majority of the evidence to circumstantial eyewitness testimonies. Because why stop at a phone call? why should a government be able to search your residence? open a safe? read a diary? open your computer? And if you deny them all that then what happens? sure at first the legal system would be in a transition phase where much less people might be convicted because under these new restrictions the prosecution won't be able to meet the bar required for conviction but fairly quickly as soon as conviction rates would drop the legal system would bounce back up and get used to the reality of less evidence and this isn't a good place to be. Any development in forensic sciences and investigatory techniques has prevented innocent people from being charged and convicted just as it helped to convict the guilty (don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's perfect or that mistakes are not being made, but DNA for example had to exonerate as many people that it helped to put in). So I'm not entirely sure we want to go back to the days where people were judged in court based on how many character references they could provide.

anafh83 8y ago
Ah okay, we have it backwards. I'm saying that people would allow LE to intercept communications everywhere in the world except in the US!
- dogma1138 8y ago
  I think i misread the original comment you made then :)