6 ms·

Because saying "he's dead so this is the end of the matter" is unwise and it's worrying you're even asking this. . Were other people involved? . or other org

Because saying "he's dead so this is the end of the matter" is unwise and it's worrying you're even asking this. . Were other people involved? . or other organisations such as extremists organisations? . Did he have people egging him on (even if totally uninvolved otherwise), or was he a complete loner? . Is there a hidden motive here that's not obvious? . Further evidence of stable and rational thinking, or mentally unstable? . Is it possible he was aided by legal loopholes, or some failures in process that need patching? . Could he have left any nasty surprises behind? . Does his behaviour indicate something that would allow prediction of similar crimes and perhaps their thwarting? . Photos/films of something of interest like supporters, discussions of further action, whatever In this case, once a crime is committed, all info needs to be gathered. I'm saying that as someone who is disturbed at extensions of state powers, but once there's a crime, I'm all for picking up everything and analysing it.

NohatCoder 7y ago
Sure it would be nice to have access to the phone, but it is just one of many pieces of evidence that may be gathered, and mostly it is redundant with other sources. If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations, unless he really knew how to hide his tracks, in which case it is unlikely that he would have left any trails on his phone either.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  You may be right, but I'm not convinced. > and mostly it is redundant with other sources The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily). So I can't accept what you say (yet). > If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations These being? You can move about freely in the states, and he was a domestic terrorist. > unless he really knew how to hide his tracks Agreed, but it seems most domestic terrorists are bad planners or stupid AFAICS. People like Ted Kaczynski seem to be the exception, most are idiots who will boast online or ask "how can i maek teh THTP" from google. I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me. I draw the line on the side of privacy. I'm absolutely fine with potential unresolved loose ends in a criminal investigation if it means we actually get to practice real security and gain all the privacy that entails. Regardless of that, I'm not convinced that the actionable information they could obtain is unique to the phone; there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering. It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > I draw the line on the side of privacy. It's easy to be abstract - what if it had been your family & family? Or do strangers not count? > there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering which you've not given, twice. > It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors. It's difficult and I see what you're saying even if I don't yet agree.
      - spunker540 7y ago
        The reason you're getting downvoted is it seems like you believe encryption should be illegal unless it has a govt backdoor. Encryption is just math, so it's a hard thing to criminalize and to enforce. Furthermore, if the government has a backdoor to all encrypted data then that means China and Russia and any independent hacker would be also searching for that same backdoor and once they find it everyone's screwed. It's really impractical to think that the government could enforce backdoors into all encryption and it'd be exceptionally dangerous if they required all US companies to comply with backdoored encryption. Not to mention the privacy implications of never being safe from government surveillance.
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm getting downvoted because people don't want to answer questions like, what if it was people killed who mattered to you, or, exactly what other avenues of evidence gathering? I get that elsewhere too - ask about the limits of self-arming and bingo, downvotes without answers, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 It's the online version of turning away with an angry huff because they don't like where this is going. OK, back to your point, and thanks for a decent response. The encryption issue is difficult and I made it clear I was ambivalent eg. "I care greatly about privacy...". I fully understand the implications of a legal backdoor, and I don't want it [x]. But if phones are the main comms tool now, and if further killings are pending and can be prevented, at least ask the questions. So I'm wondering if there is some compromise or something. Some way of putting a backdoor in which a 2nd party has a key to (not the gov't). Or something. Yes I'm aware that gov'ts may unfairly lean on the 2nd party. Is there some way through this? Let's try to be creative. Perhaps this is a mathematically way of proving, based on some assumptions, that I can't have what I want then we can stop wasting time on it and we can get on with the fight against government strong-arming. Can we at least have a conversation on it without angry, downvote'y silences? This isn't a constructive. It gets us nowhere. edit, add clarification [x] that if a compromise can't be found and I had to choose between the government having backdoors or not, I'd fall pretty rapidly on the side of Fuck, No. They will be abused. I probably know this better than you.

NohatCoder 7y ago

Sure it would be nice to have access to the phone, but it is just one of many pieces of evidence that may be gathered, and mostly it is redundant with other sources. If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations, unless he really knew how to hide his tracks, in which case it is unlikely that he would have left any trails on his phone either.

tempguy9999 7y ago
You may be right, but I'm not convinced. > and mostly it is redundant with other sources The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily). So I can't accept what you say (yet). > If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations These being? You can move about freely in the states, and he was a domestic terrorist. > unless he really knew how to hide his tracks Agreed, but it seems most domestic terrorists are bad planners or stupid AFAICS. People like Ted Kaczynski seem to be the exception, most are idiots who will boast online or ask "how can i maek teh THTP" from google. I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me.
- kelnos 7y ago
  > I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me. I draw the line on the side of privacy. I'm absolutely fine with potential unresolved loose ends in a criminal investigation if it means we actually get to practice real security and gain all the privacy that entails. Regardless of that, I'm not convinced that the actionable information they could obtain is unique to the phone; there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering. It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > I draw the line on the side of privacy. It's easy to be abstract - what if it had been your family & family? Or do strangers not count? > there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering which you've not given, twice. > It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors. It's difficult and I see what you're saying even if I don't yet agree.
    - spunker540 7y ago
      The reason you're getting downvoted is it seems like you believe encryption should be illegal unless it has a govt backdoor. Encryption is just math, so it's a hard thing to criminalize and to enforce. Furthermore, if the government has a backdoor to all encrypted data then that means China and Russia and any independent hacker would be also searching for that same backdoor and once they find it everyone's screwed. It's really impractical to think that the government could enforce backdoors into all encryption and it'd be exceptionally dangerous if they required all US companies to comply with backdoored encryption. Not to mention the privacy implications of never being safe from government surveillance.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm getting downvoted because people don't want to answer questions like, what if it was people killed who mattered to you, or, exactly what other avenues of evidence gathering? I get that elsewhere too - ask about the limits of self-arming and bingo, downvotes without answers, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20606212 It's the online version of turning away with an angry huff because they don't like where this is going. OK, back to your point, and thanks for a decent response. The encryption issue is difficult and I made it clear I was ambivalent eg. "I care greatly about privacy...". I fully understand the implications of a legal backdoor, and I don't want it [x]. But if phones are the main comms tool now, and if further killings are pending and can be prevented, at least ask the questions. So I'm wondering if there is some compromise or something. Some way of putting a backdoor in which a 2nd party has a key to (not the gov't). Or something. Yes I'm aware that gov'ts may unfairly lean on the 2nd party. Is there some way through this? Let's try to be creative. Perhaps this is a mathematically way of proving, based on some assumptions, that I can't have what I want then we can stop wasting time on it and we can get on with the fight against government strong-arming. Can we at least have a conversation on it without angry, downvote'y silences? This isn't a constructive. It gets us nowhere. edit, add clarification [x] that if a compromise can't be found and I had to choose between the government having backdoors or not, I'd fall pretty rapidly on the side of Fuck, No. They will be abused. I probably know this better than you.