3 ms·
The forbidding of destroying evidence does not require one to produce evidence in the first place. Deciding against installing cameras in my house does not mean
by CobrastanJorji 7y ago
The forbidding of destroying evidence does not require one to produce evidence in the first place. Deciding against installing cameras in my house does not mean I'm guilty of destroying evidence.
- tptacek 7y agoI think that's a fair point, but the analogizing goes both ways: yes, your phone is generating a lot of information about you that simply wouldn't have existed in the pre-Internet era, but at the same time a lot of information that would have existed in that earlier era is now inaccessible by default, without any effort on your part. I think the government is on the wrong side of this issue, but I don't think they're making the broad "going dark" concern up. I think technologists need to engage more fully with the law enforcement concerns here rather than dismissing them.
- wh1t3n01s3 7y agoThere are already a lot a more sources of information today (beside encrypted nessages) than there was in the pre internet era. At that time you simply called from a public phone (for example), even less trackable. Not to mention all the nowadays technology that ease remote tracking of any sort (micro sensors, cameras etc etc). So no, to me it does not go both ways