4 ms·

I know this decision was "expected", however, I can't help but get the feeling that in an "ideal society", where governments wouldn't abuse their powers, and pe

I know this decision was "expected", however, I can't help but get the feeling that in an "ideal society", where governments wouldn't abuse their powers, and people's rights would be much more "reasonable" (in a good way), the government would not be able to force you to put your finger on something. After all we have so many laws that offer similar type of protections already, such as a wife not having to testify against her husband. At some point the society decided that it's the "right thing" to do. Perhaps the society can decide that having the government force you to unlock your devices with your finger is unacceptable.

rayiner 12y ago
> After all we have so many laws that offer similar type of protections already, such as a wife not having to testify against her husband. At some point the society decided that it's the "right thing" to do. To put it in context: spousal privilege is rooted deeply in religious tradition going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It fell naturally out of a belief that people already had (the indivisible marital unit). That's what it takes to overcome the default presumption that "the public has the right to every man's evidence." Now, the fact that something has been the case for probably 800 years doesn't mean it can't be changed, but does suggest that if people really had a problem with it, they would have taken issue with it by now.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "Now, the fact that something has been the case for probably 800 years doesn't mean it can't be changed, but does suggest that if people really had a problem with it, they would have taken issue with it by now." I think it certainly does suggest that, but it's worth noting that what we really have a problem with shifts over time. Whether that's going to be relevant here, I can't say...

4 ms·

I know this decision was "expected", however, I can't help but get the feeling that in an "ideal society", where governments wouldn't abuse their powers, and pe

by higherpurpose 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago
> After all we have so many laws that offer similar type of protections already, such as a wife not having to testify against her husband. At some point the society decided that it's the "right thing" to do. To put it in context: spousal privilege is rooted deeply in religious tradition going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It fell naturally out of a belief that people already had (the indivisible marital unit). That's what it takes to overcome the default presumption that "the public has the right to every man's evidence." Now, the fact that something has been the case for probably 800 years doesn't mean it can't be changed, but does suggest that if people really had a problem with it, they would have taken issue with it by now.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "Now, the fact that something has been the case for probably 800 years doesn't mean it can't be changed, but does suggest that if people really had a problem with it, they would have taken issue with it by now." I think it certainly does suggest that, but it's worth noting that what we really have a problem with shifts over time. Whether that's going to be relevant here, I can't say...