4 ms·

Thanks for the pointer. It seems like it's not so clear-cut, with lots of fine legal points around search on person vs. property, digital vs. analog/physical "

Thanks for the pointer. It seems like it's not so clear-cut, with lots of fine legal points around search on person vs. property, digital vs. analog/physical "goods", the individual suspicion requirement etc etc.: >>At a minimum, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision makes clear that this issue isn’t likely to resolve itself. The case for clarity from a higher court—or from Congress—is only getting stronger. https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-circuit-split-device-searches-border-us-v-touset https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-circuit-split-device-sea... I find it lamentable that the people who sued the US Government for the legality of these searches were both involved with child pornography.

rtkwe 7y ago
It's the unfortunate fact that any privacy protecting program will also protect people generally deemed morally reprehensible. There's no way to make software tell the distinction between the two groups so it's something both programmers and privacy advocates are going to have to deal with because there will always be people both in and out of government who will use those cases to push for their abolition. (see the never ending boomerang of anti-encryption legislation around the world)