4 ms·

Not to say he's wrong but just to put this on the other side of the coin, having access (via due process) to digital records would also make for extremely power

by tootie 3y ago

Not to say he's wrong but just to put this on the other side of the coin, having access (via due process) to digital records would also make for extremely powerful law enforcement in the way it was intended. Meaning we'd be able to enforce the law much more effectively. And it would likely apply to some of the most serious crimes like organized crime and terrorism. My other counterpoint would be looking at the Cold War. The Gestapo ran the most notorious police state in history and they did it in a country where many people didn't even own a telephone. The division between use and abuse is much more about political will than technology.

_heimdall 3y ago
The challenge there is that we've yet to find a way to make sure law enforcement actually has good reason to search digital records first. Its a surprisingly common practice for police to collect evidence in ways that aren't admissible only to use that as justification for a search. Digital makes that much worse, and centralized digital with a handful of massive corporations holding the data again compounds the risk.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Actually, this is a great pro argument for E2EE: It acts as a bulwark against illegal searches - not only by law enforcement, but by any intermediaries.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Absolutely, IMO its one of the best arguments in favor of E2EE. Law enforcement could still seize the data, but only by accessing my copy of it directly and presumably by going through proper legal channels. If nothing else, there's only one (or a few) points of failure, much like paper copies of anything in the past.
    - tootie 3y ago
      > only by accessing my copy You're still taking the perspective of "what if they come after me" which is highly improbable. And not the "what if they can't go after someone who has wronged me". I'm not saying that should flip your point of view, just being aware that it's at trade-off.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        That does assume that I'm more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator though. I've seen various studies (and unreferenced claims) about the idea that we regularly break multiple laws every day without realizing it. Allowing law enforcement more access to various parts of my life requires that I trust they won't come after me for something that is technically illegal but currently rarely enforced. There is also the risk that what is legal today is not tomorrow. That's no small risk given the potential outcomes depending on who is in power later on. I hope I don't come off argumentative here, that's not my goal but text alone is pretty limiting sometimes. I get your point and it is a good one, I just personally am more concerned with the risks of what could be used against me than having an authority protect me. I'm also a bit biased here. I live in an unincorporated area and, unless some real shit is going down, if I call the police they may show up tomorrow.
      - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
        I've had my house raided, and $10k worth of gear taken by law enforcement, which they kept for 8 months, finding nothing, then I got to go and pick it up. My perspective is permanently in "what if they come after me" as a result of this. However, even prior to that incident, I've believed that violating the rights of an innocent party is a worse outcome than not being able to access incriminating data of the guilty.
jdasdf 3y ago
>Meaning we'd be able to enforce the law much more effectively. There is no technical or practical barrier to enforcement of most relevant laws. The primary barrier for such enforcement is the same that causes some many and so vague laws to be created, political will. Universal enforcement is not the purpose, selective enforcement is.
jMyles 3y ago
Even if this is cause for hope in the short-term, it continues the unsustainable division in society of and "us" and a "them", where one party is responsible for law enforcement (and for that matter, the application of justice) and the other is not. Presently, the United States is still in a more than century-long process of dismantling a slave-and-plantation economy, which is upheld only by the application of justice being misused to buttress it. Plantations will continue to masquerade as correctional facilities until the monopoly on justice is dissolved and fundamental functions of society - especially law enforcement - become a universal purview rather than belonging only to "them" or "us".
- tootie 3y ago
  > the unsustainable division in society of and "us" and a "them" Assuming we've zoomed in on the US in particular that division doesn't seem to be increasing except in people's heads. We have more unfiltered access to our representatives than ever. Even law enforcement abuse has been worse at every point in history before now. The difference in sentiment is largely due to higher expectations. Which isn't a bad thing at all I'm just saying we're mostly on a positive trajectory.

by tootie 3y ago

_heimdall 3y ago

The challenge there is that we've yet to find a way to make sure law enforcement actually has good reason to search digital records first. Its a surprisingly common practice for police to collect evidence in ways that aren't admissible only to use that as justification for a search. Digital makes that much worse, and centralized digital with a handful of massive corporations holding the data again compounds the risk.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Actually, this is a great pro argument for E2EE: It acts as a bulwark against illegal searches - not only by law enforcement, but by any intermediaries.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Absolutely, IMO its one of the best arguments in favor of E2EE. Law enforcement could still seize the data, but only by accessing my copy of it directly and presumably by going through proper legal channels. If nothing else, there's only one (or a few) points of failure, much like paper copies of anything in the past.
  - tootie 3y ago
    > only by accessing my copy You're still taking the perspective of "what if they come after me" which is highly improbable. And not the "what if they can't go after someone who has wronged me". I'm not saying that should flip your point of view, just being aware that it's at trade-off.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      That does assume that I'm more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator though. I've seen various studies (and unreferenced claims) about the idea that we regularly break multiple laws every day without realizing it. Allowing law enforcement more access to various parts of my life requires that I trust they won't come after me for something that is technically illegal but currently rarely enforced. There is also the risk that what is legal today is not tomorrow. That's no small risk given the potential outcomes depending on who is in power later on. I hope I don't come off argumentative here, that's not my goal but text alone is pretty limiting sometimes. I get your point and it is a good one, I just personally am more concerned with the risks of what could be used against me than having an authority protect me. I'm also a bit biased here. I live in an unincorporated area and, unless some real shit is going down, if I call the police they may show up tomorrow.
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      I've had my house raided, and $10k worth of gear taken by law enforcement, which they kept for 8 months, finding nothing, then I got to go and pick it up. My perspective is permanently in "what if they come after me" as a result of this. However, even prior to that incident, I've believed that violating the rights of an innocent party is a worse outcome than not being able to access incriminating data of the guilty.

jdasdf 3y ago

>Meaning we'd be able to enforce the law much more effectively. There is no technical or practical barrier to enforcement of most relevant laws. The primary barrier for such enforcement is the same that causes some many and so vague laws to be created, political will. Universal enforcement is not the purpose, selective enforcement is.

jMyles 3y ago

Even if this is cause for hope in the short-term, it continues the unsustainable division in society of and "us" and a "them", where one party is responsible for law enforcement (and for that matter, the application of justice) and the other is not. Presently, the United States is still in a more than century-long process of dismantling a slave-and-plantation economy, which is upheld only by the application of justice being misused to buttress it. Plantations will continue to masquerade as correctional facilities until the monopoly on justice is dissolved and fundamental functions of society - especially law enforcement - become a universal purview rather than belonging only to "them" or "us".

tootie 3y ago
> the unsustainable division in society of and "us" and a "them" Assuming we've zoomed in on the US in particular that division doesn't seem to be increasing except in people's heads. We have more unfiltered access to our representatives than ever. Even law enforcement abuse has been worse at every point in history before now. The difference in sentiment is largely due to higher expectations. Which isn't a bad thing at all I'm just saying we're mostly on a positive trajectory.