5 ms·

Here's a probably truly unpopular opinion: I think it's reasonable policy to enable police, after a judgement by an impartial judge, to surveil suspects, encryp

Here's a probably truly unpopular opinion: I think it's reasonable policy to enable police, after a judgement by an impartial judge, to surveil suspects, encryption or not. This has worked reasonably well for decades, in Europe's liberal democracies, for pain old telephone, mail, searching apartments, etc. Yes, there have been mistakes and failings, but by and large this system works, and prevents substantial harm. These powers need an actually independent judiciary in a strong legal system (ie. not the us). And they need to be kept out of the hands of secret services (as opposed to genuine police work overseen by judges in the public record).

jaywalk 5y ago
The point that people are trying to make is not that surveillance itself needs to be banned. I think any reasonable person can see that there are circumstances where it's necessary. The issue is specifically with backdooring encryption to enable surveillance. You're basically describing some magical fantasy land where the ability to utilize the backdoor could be restricted to "genuine police work" by the legal system. Here in reality, we have to acknowledge that it's impossible to do that.