> That backdoor can then be used to acquire my encryption key and decrypt my data, so I think it's still entirely relevant. Putting a backdoor on a device is u

> That backdoor can then be used to acquire my encryption key and decrypt my data, so I think it's still entirely relevant. Putting a backdoor on a device is utterly ineffective way of gathering evidence. If I was taken into custody and knew that damning evidence was on my phone, I would want to make sure that it never fell into police hands. The cop's backdoor would see me walk up to my car, place my phone carefully in front of the tire, and subsequently drive over it. $400 for a new phone is worth the price to stay out of jail. That said, this is all hypothetical - unless you have some evidence to show that the cops and border patrol are routinely putting malware on phones in order to decrypt the contents? > Seizing a new phone, however, gives many of my intimate secrets to LEOs Which is why they should need a warrant to do so. I'm all in favor of technical solutions to prevent them from decrypting your cell phone without one. > LEOs can currently request a warrant for particular searches - phone tap, call records, physical property at a specific address etc. But if they get one that covers "smartphone" (or, later, memories), that basically gives them access to everything, almost all of which will be quite personal and entirely unrelated to the case. Look at your examples again - in all of them (not just the cell phone), there is the potential for the police to collect personal information information that is completely unrelated to the case. That's why the police need to go before a judge and show probable cause in order to get a warrant. I don't understand why the folks on HN think it's okay for the cops to go into your home with a warrant and search through your personal effects (including your computer), but a cell phone is something completely different.