4 ms·

Agreed. This seems like a reasonable request to me, providing there is a warrant.

enriquto 5y ago
of course, all egregious erosions of freedom start, always, by presenting a reasonable case. That does not make them right.
- bassdropvroom 5y ago
  So we shouldn't catch criminals then. By that logic, investigations, and evidence gathering for said investigations is not right either.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    There are very good reasons for evidence obtained by unlawful means to be ignored, even if it would help to catch a criminal.
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      I never understood why that's the case. Is it not to encourage unlawful activity? Stealing an example from mr robot, if I break into someone's computer and find evidence that proves they are trafficking underage photos, I don't see why that proof should be ignored , in any circumstances. Sure, charge me as well with breaking into someone's computer, if you can catch me, but don't dismiss my evidence.
      - kian 5y ago
        It is to discourage unlawful activity on the part of law enforcement.
    - bassdropvroom 5y ago
      Sure, and that's probably best. In my original comment, I specifically mentioned that what the FBI is asking for is reasonable providing there is a warrant, which would imply that they're gathering evidence lawfully.
- webreac 5y ago
  I prefer to have clearly identified and clearly limited exceptions to my rights, rather than a large scale violation of our rights, hidden with lies.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  That is true, but it does not follow that all reasonable cases will develop into egregious ones...
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  I think the main problem is that we allow the justice system to step on private companies. I think the company owning the data should be able to decide whether to give the data and aid the investigation or not (which is something that affect their reputation and that they can tell their customers, either as an advantage or a disadvantage)

of course, all egregious erosions of freedom start, always, by presenting a reasonable case. That does not make them right.

bassdropvroom 5y ago
So we shouldn't catch criminals then. By that logic, investigations, and evidence gathering for said investigations is not right either.
- enriquto 5y ago
  There are very good reasons for evidence obtained by unlawful means to be ignored, even if it would help to catch a criminal.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    I never understood why that's the case. Is it not to encourage unlawful activity? Stealing an example from mr robot, if I break into someone's computer and find evidence that proves they are trafficking underage photos, I don't see why that proof should be ignored , in any circumstances. Sure, charge me as well with breaking into someone's computer, if you can catch me, but don't dismiss my evidence.
    - kian 5y ago
      It is to discourage unlawful activity on the part of law enforcement.
  - bassdropvroom 5y ago
    Sure, and that's probably best. In my original comment, I specifically mentioned that what the FBI is asking for is reasonable providing there is a warrant, which would imply that they're gathering evidence lawfully.
webreac 5y ago
I prefer to have clearly identified and clearly limited exceptions to my rights, rather than a large scale violation of our rights, hidden with lies.
LatteLazy 5y ago
That is true, but it does not follow that all reasonable cases will develop into egregious ones...
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I think the main problem is that we allow the justice system to step on private companies. I think the company owning the data should be able to decide whether to give the data and aid the investigation or not (which is something that affect their reputation and that they can tell their customers, either as an advantage or a disadvantage)