Posted on 05/09/2016 11:35:11 AM PDT by Ray76
Phones that lock away everything they hold could inhibit law enforcement more than we really want.
Are we certain we want to eliminate an important source of evidence that helps not only cops and prosecutors but also judges, juries, and defense attorneys arrive at the truth?
(Excerpt) Read more at technologyreview.com ...
There is just that stinky old Fifth Amendment that We The People wanted between us and a tyranny. Other than that, I suppose there is no reason.
Even it government could open all iPhones the user can still use encryption software making access almost useless.
“A policemans job is only easy in a police state”.
It’s no different than if I have a secret I won’t tell you.
Hold me in contempt, but you can’t make me tell you.
Providing back doors into encryption and devices only serves to make permanent vulnerabilities bad people will also use.
We need to trust our digital transactions.
When did this become a country where the government’s convenience trumps the rights of the people?
The ways around this are to simply profile and bug those who are under suspicion. To make EVERYONE permanently vulnerable to bad people is insane and freaking lazy.
The source of evidence has not been eliminated. But the government must collaborate with the private sector to collect evidence, JUST AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
When a convenience store CCTV records evidence, the police must still collaborate with the private store owner to get the evidence. A court order can be obtained for finger prints. They have to collaborate with phone companies to get phone records. Blood Tests? Probable cause. The system works as it is. There is no need for the Government to have unfettered (but responsibly promised privacy) access to any civilian's life. They also do not need to impede on the business model of the private industry.
Throughout history, the private sector has mostly lead the way on technology innovation. The government has led the way in several areas that eventually found it's way to the private sector (GPS, RADAR, Nuclear Power, etc.). This situation is not as new or unique as the government would like us to believe.
July 28, 1868
“Are we certain we want to eliminate an important source of evidence that helps not only cops and prosecutors but also judges, juries, and defense attorneys arrive at the truth?”
Yes.
Right to remain silent.
Right to secure papers.
Right to not have government agents record your every word (even if only revealed under court order).
The Constitution forbids *unreasonable* searches and seizures...not ALL searches and seizures.
Not "what if"
There. That's all you need to roll your own practically unbreakable encryption software. And it fits nicely on a t-shirt. ... So you're back to the problem of anti-encryption laws only working against the law-abiding, being simple to evade for those inclined to do so. And I'll sell you the shirt if you want.
Yes.
If you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the problem? </s>
This Day in History: July 28, 1868
Following its ratification by the necessary three-quarters of U.S. states, the 14th Amendment is officially adopted into the U.S. Constitution.
The amendment resolved pre-Civil War questions of African American citizenship by stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.” The amendment then reaffirmed the privileges and rights of all citizens, and granted all these citizens the “equal protection of the laws.”
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/14th-amendment-adopted
“Are we certain we want to eliminate an important source of evidence that helps not only cops and prosecutors but also judges, juries, and defense attorneys arrive at the truth?”
Are you certain you want any hacker worth his salt being able to gain access to even the best secured devices? Because that’s what you are asking for...
I have yet to see a well reasoned discussion of this topic.
They can seize the data if they want. The owner, having the right to remain silent (per testifying against self), doesn’t have to make sense of it for them.
The government is not empowered to
- Record your conversations when doing so may only prove actionable later, if ever
- Require you translate content recorded in a language they can’t find a translator for
- Give them the key to a safe without current cause to demand it
- Or otherwise demand you create siezable evidence
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.