6 ms·
I think it's also important to point out that this sort of evidence didn't exist until very recently. Before smartphones with video capability existed, the FB
by bickfordb 12y ago
I think it's also important to point out that this sort of evidence didn't exist until very recently. Before smartphones with video capability existed, the FBI wasn't insisting that technology companies develop them and that consumers adopt them. Now that we have them they're insisting that we give them unencrypted access to incriminate ourselves.
- ctdonath 12y agoNonetheless, the American Founding Fathers recognized the core problem and addressed it in a clear comprehensive manner: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In no way could that be construed as permitting federal requirement that personal communications & records be arbitrarily accessible by law enforcement agents on a "fishing expedition".
- csandreasen 12y agoNo, but it could be construed as permitting federal requirement that personal communications & records be accessible by law enforcement agents who have been issued a warrant based upon probable cause and describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
- ctdonath 12y agoDisagree. They understood encryption, and enumerated rights to free speech and not testifying against oneself. Warrants empower government agents to acquire information, but not compel the accused to explain it.
- YokoZar 12y agoLet's be fair, the police are actually very concerned about privacy and ubiquitous recording when it's of on-duty police behavior.
- CyberDildonics 12y agoThe NSA is also very concerned about having access to real encryption.