3 ms·
the first case was literally a border check at an airport, and in which no evidence was ever shown of him committing a crime other than this one. The others yes
by zipy124 2y ago
the first case was literally a border check at an airport, and in which no evidence was ever shown of him committing a crime other than this one. The others yes. The point is no court was required to compell him, no warrant was needed. The point is that the law allows for abuse of power by law enforcement not that it is currently being abused, do not move the goal-posts.
Also if encryption itself is not illegal, but it is illegal to not decrypt something when asked, then encryption is effectively illegal, since you only need to convince a part of the state that you have suspicion to get it decrypted for you, a task which is really not that difficult in the modern day.
- ivan_gammel 2y agoI looked deeper into the first case and it doesn’t look like a random border check. He was a political activist who got in touch with a member of terrorist organization, if I understand it correctly. There was a massive media campaign to present this case in a certain way, but at least two courts confirmed the legality of the demand to unlock the devices. The abuse of power means they could detain him indefinitely etc (as it happens in countries where abuse of power is common). But in this case he had the right to defend himself in the court and he used it. This is very far from the situation where encryption is illegal, all communications are transparent to the state and it can search for incriminating data without asking.