3 ms·
It reads like a sponsored piece from the DoJ. "I took my courtroom musings to the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick, an expert on digital privacy and a former criminal d
by flocial 8y ago
It reads like a sponsored piece from the DoJ.
"I took my courtroom musings to the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick, an expert on digital privacy and a former criminal defense attorney. She said even if law enforcement and prosecutors can’t access every morsel of digital information when investigating a crime, there is often more than one way to compile the same evidence or corroborating information."
Yet, why not give up our freedoms to make life easier for law enforcement.
- BLKNSLVR 8y agoI was expecting much deeper digression into all the alternative evidence that was mentioned, and how that should prove: 1. Encryption isn't a silver bullet to protect someone from being found guilty of crimes they committed 2. All the angles from which other evidence can be gathered is highly likely to close out any thoughts of reasonable doubt. Relate it all to the case that was used as an example, then pose the question, would you have any reasonable doubt that they were guilty? Requiring the content of the accused's phone is akin to requiring their signed confession before they can be found guilty. The article's conclusion is a little offensive: I felt willing to give up a little more of my personal privacy to make sure my fellow citizens are safe. Where to draw that line, though, is decidedly not black and white. It IS black and white. You don't need to give up any personal privacy to make your fellow citizens feel safe, that's how it's been for a long time... I'd actually feel less safe knowing there's a government spectre hanging over my digital life.