3 ms·

Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? It seems that to lawmakers, t

by jimmar 6y ago

Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same trade-off.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? Sure. The 4th Amendment has nothing against anything that preserves secure communications. > It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. No, they are proclaiming that getting dangerous people is so important that the privacy rights like those in the Fourth Amendment shouldn't apply, which tendency is exactly why we have the Fourth Amendment.
mindslight 6y ago
All secure encryption is compatible with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment is a restriction on the government, not a requirement for citizens to structure their personal affairs so we can be easily searched.
hedora 6y ago
The US is more of a surveillance state now than it ever has been before. Police have unprecedented surveillance capabilities, and still would even if everyone used unbreakable encryption. Credit cards, surveillance cameras, cell network tracking logs, targeted advertising, and the rise of social media have all but killed privacy on their own. The police already have access to all that data, and more. The idea that we need to add more surveillance capabilities to protect historical law enforcement capabilities is laughable.
chungus_khan 6y ago
> Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same trade-off. That's not even the real trade-off. Serious criminals who were already actively using end-to-end encrypted services will continue using them or services like them, regardless of whether they have permission. The US can try to block and shut them down as much as they like, but ultimately there's no stopping them. The only kind of criminals this would affect are the ones that were already not taking security precautions. This is a massive hit to privacy and digital security with no actual meaningful upside.

by jimmar 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? Sure. The 4th Amendment has nothing against anything that preserves secure communications. > It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. No, they are proclaiming that getting dangerous people is so important that the privacy rights like those in the Fourth Amendment shouldn't apply, which tendency is exactly why we have the Fourth Amendment.

mindslight 6y ago

All secure encryption is compatible with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment is a restriction on the government, not a requirement for citizens to structure their personal affairs so we can be easily searched.

hedora 6y ago

The US is more of a surveillance state now than it ever has been before. Police have unprecedented surveillance capabilities, and still would even if everyone used unbreakable encryption. Credit cards, surveillance cameras, cell network tracking logs, targeted advertising, and the rise of social media have all but killed privacy on their own. The police already have access to all that data, and more. The idea that we need to add more surveillance capabilities to protect historical law enforcement capabilities is laughable.

chungus_khan 6y ago

> Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same trade-off. That's not even the real trade-off. Serious criminals who were already actively using end-to-end encrypted services will continue using them or services like them, regardless of whether they have permission. The US can try to block and shut them down as much as they like, but ultimately there's no stopping them. The only kind of criminals this would affect are the ones that were already not taking security precautions. This is a massive hit to privacy and digital security with no actual meaningful upside.