5 ms·
I'm not talking about widespread surveillance. Decades ago, if they had evidence you were involved in crime, they could apply for a warrant to tap your phone,
by NateEag 6y ago
I'm not talking about widespread surveillance.
Decades ago, if they had evidence you were involved in crime, they could apply for a warrant to tap your phone, search your house, or read your mail.
That's focused surveillance, not mass, and it's under the oversight of a judge.
In a world of end-to-end encryption, they can't realistically find useful evidence by doing those things any more.
Parking their van outside doesn't help as much, either - you can conspire to commit crimes quite easily without ever leaving your house or having confederates come there, thanks to encrypted video chats.
- mulmen 6y agoI don't think they ever needed the ability to tap phones or read mail. Capabilities that were repeatedly abused, just like internet surveillance. Where will I commit this crime? Somewhere in meatspace or it doesn't matter. Cops can work backward from there.
- NateEag 6y agoI'm pretty confident you can commit crimes that matter without physical presence. Most people don't approve of making millions from insider trading, for example. Or of cryptolocking beloved photo collections and holding them ransom for bitcoin.
- mulmen 6y agoYou don't need to tap phones to catch and prosecute insider trading. You can't stop cryptolocking by tapping a phone or by banning encryption.