3 ms·
In their teen rapist scenario, why is the parolee permitted to even have a smartphone? Should be limited to a flip phone with easily-tapped SMS and no apps.
by CodeWriter23 8y ago
In their teen rapist scenario, why is the parolee permitted to even have a smartphone? Should be limited to a flip phone with easily-tapped SMS and no apps.
- brokenmachine 8y agoAlso, if they are sure he sent messages, then why can't they obtain those messages from the recipients? And what actually happened to the presumption of innocence? Sounds suspiciously like they have decided someone is guilty without actual evidence. It's just a stupid story that makes no sense. They want the ability to spy on any citizen with no judicial oversight, and this is the best argument they can come up with for such a massive overreach? I'm honestly insulted. These are the people who are meant to be looking after our interests?
- CodeWriter23 8y agoThat’s my point. The child rapist on parole scenario is a straw man. They don’t need breakable encryption to address that problem. Parole requires the parolee to sign a contract. Put a no smartphones clause in there and they’re done. Then they can rearrest on that basis alone if he has a smartphone, and let him serve the rest of his original sentence.