5 ms·

I too was surprised by the author's question. It's as if he hasn't been following the news lately about the apparent impotence of the 4th amendment these days.

I too was surprised by the author's question. It's as if he hasn't been following the news lately about the apparent impotence of the 4th amendment these days. Yet his wiki page says he "has been regarded as a leading scholar on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in electronic communications and surveillance." In light of that, he comes across as extremely naive. (or worse?)

bjt 12y ago
His Wikipedia page also relates his career in the DoJ and as a US Attorney, a very different background from the typical libertarian HN reader. I don't agree with Orin Kerr on this, but I'm willing to accept that he's likely seen things about the day-to-day business of law enforcement that I just don't understand. It's worth us spending at least a few moments entertaining the thought that maybe we are the naive ones.
- jnbiche 12y ago
  > but I'm willing to accept that he's likely seen things about the day-to-day business of law enforcement that I just don't understand...that maybe we are the naive ones. I'm sorry, but no, no, no. I'm perfectly clear on what exactly this move by Apple enables, which is that more criminals -- some horrible -- will go free. But context is important here: 1. By the same token, more innocent people who never should have been charged will also go free. 2. Giving up many of our constitutional rights would also result in more criminals being apprehended, but few of us would do that, because we understand the importance of these rights for our system of government. Why is this any different? 3. Most importantly, many of us would be much more amenable to a compromise here if the government hadn't horribly abused their power over the past 15-20 years. Prosecutorial misconduct and out-of-control blackops agencies have become such a problem that almost any solution is worth consideration. You think Apple would have done this if our government had a reputation for fairly using its power? So no, not falling for the "we've seen things you kids would never understand" ploy -- that's been pulled on us before. It's not working this time.
- andrewchambers 12y ago
  Of course from his perspective, not being able to access crucial evidence puts peoples lives in danger constantly. So it's not that unreasonable of a position to take. But he has been exposed to highly unusual circumstances with a high bias.
- r00fus 12y ago
  > I don't agree with Orin Kerr on this, but I'm willing to accept that he's likely seen things about the day-to-day business of law enforcement that I just don't understand. Sorry, it's more likely he's just vested in the current (not-privacy-respecting) system of governance. One which has major drawbacks for many folks who are pushing the envelope or who just happen to be on the wrong side of one of the many folks who have access to the government's powers.

bjt 12y ago

His Wikipedia page also relates his career in the DoJ and as a US Attorney, a very different background from the typical libertarian HN reader. I don't agree with Orin Kerr on this, but I'm willing to accept that he's likely seen things about the day-to-day business of law enforcement that I just don't understand. It's worth us spending at least a few moments entertaining the thought that maybe we are the naive ones.

jnbiche 12y ago
> but I'm willing to accept that he's likely seen things about the day-to-day business of law enforcement that I just don't understand...that maybe we are the naive ones. I'm sorry, but no, no, no. I'm perfectly clear on what exactly this move by Apple enables, which is that more criminals -- some horrible -- will go free. But context is important here: 1. By the same token, more innocent people who never should have been charged will also go free. 2. Giving up many of our constitutional rights would also result in more criminals being apprehended, but few of us would do that, because we understand the importance of these rights for our system of government. Why is this any different? 3. Most importantly, many of us would be much more amenable to a compromise here if the government hadn't horribly abused their power over the past 15-20 years. Prosecutorial misconduct and out-of-control blackops agencies have become such a problem that almost any solution is worth consideration. You think Apple would have done this if our government had a reputation for fairly using its power? So no, not falling for the "we've seen things you kids would never understand" ploy -- that's been pulled on us before. It's not working this time.
andrewchambers 12y ago
Of course from his perspective, not being able to access crucial evidence puts peoples lives in danger constantly. So it's not that unreasonable of a position to take. But he has been exposed to highly unusual circumstances with a high bias.
r00fus 12y ago
> I don't agree with Orin Kerr on this, but I'm willing to accept that he's likely seen things about the day-to-day business of law enforcement that I just don't understand. Sorry, it's more likely he's just vested in the current (not-privacy-respecting) system of governance. One which has major drawbacks for many folks who are pushing the envelope or who just happen to be on the wrong side of one of the many folks who have access to the government's powers.