3 ms·
No. They’re suggesting that law enforcement should have a valid reason to request someone’s private data such as this process. You have added that last line yo
by ssss11 5y ago
No. They’re suggesting that law enforcement should have a valid reason to request someone’s private data such as this process.
You have added that last line yourself, and it appears to suggest that you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals.
- mminer237 5y agoThe Fourth Amendment clearly states that law enforcement has to have a subpoena where a judge agrees there's a valid reason to demand private property, with very limited exceptions. E2E does not require a valid reason. Its only change as far as law enforcement is concerned is to stop monitoring when they do have a valid reason. (Which I think most people feel is as acceptable trade-off.)
- azinman2 5y ago> you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals. Not only did I not say such a thing (I even said it was easy to argue that encryption is a net win), it’s not something I believe, especially when you put it in such extreme terms. But encryption brings a cost, one that shouldn’t be ignored. Most people here are taking extreme arguments — assuming everything is about mass surveillance and crimes are more often than not victimless. This ignores the reality that real crimes are regularly happening that most reasonable people would wish to stop, and when you add friction to that, it means there are many cases were justice will not be served.