> These are high victim impact crimes that are being hindered by the inability of law enforcement to access encrypted communications.
Consider that, on some time scale, we (or at least, some actor) will eventually possess the technology required in order to read minds.
At that point it will be possible to determine passcodes from suspects; to determine the content of previous conversations (subject to the limitations of human memory); essentially, to extract testimony from an unwilling participant.
Will we allow that? Because, by this token; one could just as easily state that law enforcement are being hindered by their inability to access ....
Also, if they are sure he sent messages, then why can't they obtain those messages from the recipients?
And what actually happened to the presumption of innocence? Sounds suspiciously like they have decided someone is guilty without actual evidence.
It's just a stupid story that makes no sense. They want the ability to spy on any citizen with no judicial oversight, and this is the best argument they can come up with for such a massive overreach? I'm honestly insulted. These are the people who are meant to be looking after our interests?
That’s my point. The child rapist on parole scenario is a straw man. They don’t need breakable encryption to address that problem. Parole requires the parolee to sign a contract. Put a no smartphones clause in there and they’re done. Then they can rearrest on that basis alone if he has a smartphone, and let him serve the rest of his original sentence.
4 comments
[ 653 ms ] story [ 195 ms ] threadConsider that, on some time scale, we (or at least, some actor) will eventually possess the technology required in order to read minds.
At that point it will be possible to determine passcodes from suspects; to determine the content of previous conversations (subject to the limitations of human memory); essentially, to extract testimony from an unwilling participant.
Will we allow that? Because, by this token; one could just as easily state that law enforcement are being hindered by their inability to access ....
And what actually happened to the presumption of innocence? Sounds suspiciously like they have decided someone is guilty without actual evidence.
It's just a stupid story that makes no sense. They want the ability to spy on any citizen with no judicial oversight, and this is the best argument they can come up with for such a massive overreach? I'm honestly insulted. These are the people who are meant to be looking after our interests?