3 ms·

I totally agree with one exception. It's not a thought crime when there's an alleged crime and insufficient evidence. You could have a situation where there's g

• zaroth 12y ago
  Certainly your example is not thought-crime. By Apple forcing the government to serve the warrant on the accused, most importantly I think we put the conversation where it belongs; not on the 4th but the 5th. Does the 5th actually protect the accused in your particular example? I think it does, and I'm glad it does, because I think a 5th amendment which failed to protect the accused from this sort of self-incrimination, would fail overall. How much can a defendant be forced to aid in their own prosecution? You cannot ask them "did you do it" and use their refusal to answer as evidence against them. Now I have a device which constantly records the audio, video, GPS, temperature, barometric pressure, heart rate, breathing rate, etc. Maybe in a few years time it records not just everything it hears and sees, but literally everything its owner hears and sees. These devices have become, and will increasingly become, true and pure extensions of our own consciousness. Today you have two choices; you can leave it all open and available for the government to "collect" and use against you, or you can quite literally keep it locked in your head using encryption. The Bill of Rights was written in 1789. Seventeen-fucking Eighty Nine. In another 200 years, I hope its protections continue to be as meaningful.