2 ms·

>...we require evidence of wrongdoing in order to convict someone of a crime... Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify

>...we require evidence of wrongdoing in order to convict someone of a crime... Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify. Otherwise, how did we ever prosecute crimes in a world were people just talked to one another in private?

marcus_holmes 5y ago
> Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify. Yes, there is usually evidence that is not electronic. But removing the electronic evidence makes it harder to secure a conviction. In many cases, the victim's testimony is not enough. If it comes down to the victim's word against the accused's, then we come down on the side of the accused in these cases, because any doubt at all is enough not to convict. To change this we would need to change our entire legal system. > Otherwise, how did we ever prosecute crimes in a world were people just talked to one another in private? Communication is not just conversation. Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Now, not so much. If all documents are e2e encrypted, we have a problem proving any crime that doesn't leave physical evidence.
- upofadown 5y ago
  >Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Certainly, which is why those up to no good would make a point of not creating such a paper trail. If they had to communicate over an insecure medium they would use codes. It seems unreasonable to insist that everyone give up their normal privacy just on the hope that a criminal might fail to obscure their meaning on what everyone will know to be an insecure medium.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    I agree, but we used to live in a world where normal people didn't use codes, and therefore had no real expectation of this kind of privacy. If the Serious Fraud Squad raided your offices, they could read all your letters and documents.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

> Most evidence is not communications. Most crimes have a victim that can testify. Yes, there is usually evidence that is not electronic. But removing the electronic evidence makes it harder to secure a conviction. In many cases, the victim's testimony is not enough. If it comes down to the victim's word against the accused's, then we come down on the side of the accused in these cases, because any doubt at all is enough not to convict. To change this we would need to change our entire legal system. > Otherwise, how did we ever prosecute crimes in a world were people just talked to one another in private? Communication is not just conversation. Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Now, not so much. If all documents are e2e encrypted, we have a problem proving any crime that doesn't leave physical evidence.

upofadown 5y ago
>Letters and documents are also communication, and leave a paper trail that could be followed. Certainly, which is why those up to no good would make a point of not creating such a paper trail. If they had to communicate over an insecure medium they would use codes. It seems unreasonable to insist that everyone give up their normal privacy just on the hope that a criminal might fail to obscure their meaning on what everyone will know to be an insecure medium.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I agree, but we used to live in a world where normal people didn't use codes, and therefore had no real expectation of this kind of privacy. If the Serious Fraud Squad raided your offices, they could read all your letters and documents.