2 ms·
It's not a crazy view but I would add a few things to that 1) The government should not be able compel corporations to add 'features' to help them in this 2)
by ska 7y ago
It's not a crazy view but I would add a few things to that
1) The government should not be able compel corporations to add 'features' to help them in this
2) We are talking about an actual warrant, where someone physically went in front of a physical judge int the same location to ask for it, and
3) There is no allowance for speculative but "safe" collection of data they might want under a warrant later - you can only access data occurring after you have the warrant, or naturally occurring records (i.e. no slurping up everyone's cell phone connections/conversations "just in case")
Broad based surveillance of the population by the government is just a bad idea. Cf much of human history on abuse of power.
Number (2) is to make sure this is an expensive process.
- angry_octet 7y agoI would add that incidental collection is still a problem -- and should the police be able to know the identity of every person in the area of a suspect? What about journalists? John Doe warrants? If should really be specifically enumerated with no slack. As in, surveillance footage keep for maximum of 1 hour (on line detection only, not historical movement search); only warranted faces will be produced in report, others people blurred. Also, having unopposed, indefinite warrant applications is bound to be troublesome. Who is checking the validity of police statements? No one. If the police want the surveillance warrant to remain secret indefinitely there should be increasing levels of review. Likewise journalists, politicians, lawyers, medical data, etc.