5 ms·

I hope so. When the phone system was manually-operated switch boards, should the phone companies have been responsible for listening to every call and reportin

I hope so. When the phone system was manually-operated switch boards, should the phone companies have been responsible for listening to every call and reporting suspicious activity to the police?

lern_too_spel 7y ago
That's not the same scenario. Your scenario involves listening to everyone. The GP's scenario involves listening to a specific person with probable cause.
- takeda 7y ago
  Which translates to listening to everyone. Once they expose data of one user they will get requests for others. Patriot act which supposed to protect population from terrorists not only failed to accomplish it, it was used in war on drugs.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Once they expose data of one user they will get requests for others. How is this any different from phone wiretaps or other surveillance orders outside of email?
- cblades 7y ago
  Given that the police wanted information after having already received the threats, they had to have requested some combination of historical and future data. They almost certainly wanted historical data primarily so that they could find the person who sent the threats. There's no way to satisfy requests for historical data without capturing data from everyone.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > There's no way to satisfy requests for historical data without capturing data from everyone. That's not what GGGP suggested. He suggested that they give data for specific people that they already have. You are setting up a strawman here.
    - cblades 7y ago
      > He suggested that they give data for specific people that they already have. ...how were they to know to capture data from those specific people before being asked?
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        They don't need to. They only need to turn over data they already have for that user and potentially any future data that is generated for that user. Wiretaps work the same way.
- snarf21 7y ago
  I hate this argument. So there was no crime before email? If you have pc, go get a wire tap or install microphones in their house or get an informant to infiltrate. Police work is hard and requires work but it is also what grants us presumption of innocence.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > If you have pc, go get a wire tap That's what this is. Instead of getting a wire tap on phones, which nobody uses anymore, they're getting a wiretap on email.

I hope so. When the phone system was manually-operated switch boards, should the phone companies have been responsible for listening to every call and reporting suspicious activity to the police?

lern_too_spel 7y ago

That's not the same scenario. Your scenario involves listening to everyone. The GP's scenario involves listening to a specific person with probable cause.

takeda 7y ago
Which translates to listening to everyone. Once they expose data of one user they will get requests for others. Patriot act which supposed to protect population from terrorists not only failed to accomplish it, it was used in war on drugs.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Once they expose data of one user they will get requests for others. How is this any different from phone wiretaps or other surveillance orders outside of email?
cblades 7y ago
Given that the police wanted information after having already received the threats, they had to have requested some combination of historical and future data. They almost certainly wanted historical data primarily so that they could find the person who sent the threats. There's no way to satisfy requests for historical data without capturing data from everyone.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > There's no way to satisfy requests for historical data without capturing data from everyone. That's not what GGGP suggested. He suggested that they give data for specific people that they already have. You are setting up a strawman here.
  - cblades 7y ago
    > He suggested that they give data for specific people that they already have. ...how were they to know to capture data from those specific people before being asked?
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      They don't need to. They only need to turn over data they already have for that user and potentially any future data that is generated for that user. Wiretaps work the same way.
snarf21 7y ago
I hate this argument. So there was no crime before email? If you have pc, go get a wire tap or install microphones in their house or get an informant to infiltrate. Police work is hard and requires work but it is also what grants us presumption of innocence.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > If you have pc, go get a wire tap That's what this is. Instead of getting a wire tap on phones, which nobody uses anymore, they're getting a wiretap on email.