4 ms·

This perspective really bothers me— I’m sure I’m not the only one. It seems to presume that the current state of affairs, where the police lack some ability to

This perspective really bothers me— I’m sure I’m not the only one. It seems to presume that the current state of affairs, where the police lack some ability to access some of the evidence which is in principle available, is a novel situation demanding of a novel response. But, like, it’s not like the original ratifiers of the Bill of Rights didn’t understand what they were doing. They _knew_ that by outlawing common law enforcement practices like arbitrary searches and coerced confessions, they would be giving up some of their ability to “punish” certain types of “criminals”. They got that it meant they couldn’t listen in on a man’s conversation with God. That’s the deal they struck to try to form a country governed by laws, not by men. It really seems like it’s not such a new situation, after all; we just have new values.

rosybox 7y ago
This response is exactly what I'm talking about. The conversation about allowing government access to private conversations is already addressed by court precedence. The weakening of encryption, which may allow bad actors to exploit what the government has access to, is the actual discussion that lawmakers are considering. People have a real hard time with coming to terms with the powers that police have. Those are not in question though. You can get mad about it, downvote me, but powerful law enforcement is a fact of modern life and it's not going away. In the US, you'd need a constitutional amendment, and there's no one calling for it, it's not an issue on any of the major parties platforms.
- okmokmz 7y ago
  >You can get mad about it, downvote me, but powerful law enforcement is a fact of modern life and it's not going away You're right. The US, China, Russia, and many other authoritarian regimes and politicians are working on further militarizing law enforcement and chipping away at the protections of citizens, such as supporting backdoors in encryption. Not a world I want to live in
masscrypteria 7y ago
Founding fathers had no way of knowing of the current state of affairs, technologically speaking. Imagine billions of unbreakable safes containing secret messages to and from anyone globally, instantly transported to anywhere in the world. Like, dude, anyone with the appropriate security clearance that is aware of the implications of the encryption status quo isn’t spending time posting here.
- okmokmz 7y ago
  No wonder you're using a throwaway to post this
  - masscrypteria 7y ago
    I can’t downvote you but your response doesn’t add any value to the conversation.
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      I was going to respond, but there is no point arguing with trolls posting pro-authoritarian opinions from a fake account because they're too scared to have their thoughts tied to their identity in any way
- Buttons840 7y ago
  People being able to communicate securely while leaving no trace behind is not new. Granted, it is new that we can communicate world wide this way, but I don't see how that changes much. "The world" to an individual has always been, and still is mostly, filled with people they could easily meet with for a secret conversation. Also, are not our minds like an unbreakable safe? Human minds have been around for a long time.

rosybox 7y ago

This response is exactly what I'm talking about. The conversation about allowing government access to private conversations is already addressed by court precedence. The weakening of encryption, which may allow bad actors to exploit what the government has access to, is the actual discussion that lawmakers are considering. People have a real hard time with coming to terms with the powers that police have. Those are not in question though. You can get mad about it, downvote me, but powerful law enforcement is a fact of modern life and it's not going away. In the US, you'd need a constitutional amendment, and there's no one calling for it, it's not an issue on any of the major parties platforms.

okmokmz 7y ago
>You can get mad about it, downvote me, but powerful law enforcement is a fact of modern life and it's not going away You're right. The US, China, Russia, and many other authoritarian regimes and politicians are working on further militarizing law enforcement and chipping away at the protections of citizens, such as supporting backdoors in encryption. Not a world I want to live in

masscrypteria 7y ago

Founding fathers had no way of knowing of the current state of affairs, technologically speaking. Imagine billions of unbreakable safes containing secret messages to and from anyone globally, instantly transported to anywhere in the world. Like, dude, anyone with the appropriate security clearance that is aware of the implications of the encryption status quo isn’t spending time posting here.

okmokmz 7y ago
No wonder you're using a throwaway to post this
- masscrypteria 7y ago
  I can’t downvote you but your response doesn’t add any value to the conversation.
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    I was going to respond, but there is no point arguing with trolls posting pro-authoritarian opinions from a fake account because they're too scared to have their thoughts tied to their identity in any way
Buttons840 7y ago
People being able to communicate securely while leaving no trace behind is not new. Granted, it is new that we can communicate world wide this way, but I don't see how that changes much. "The world" to an individual has always been, and still is mostly, filled with people they could easily meet with for a secret conversation. Also, are not our minds like an unbreakable safe? Human minds have been around for a long time.