>(and I bet they will be major consumers of decrypting devices, looking for nasty pictures or conversations!).
OK, and why would that be a bad thing? if it is done in the context of a case investigation.
OK, and why would that be a bad thing? if it is done in the context of a case investigation.
#2) in many jurisdictions a person who flirts with a consenting adult over text hasn't actually committed any crime in doing so
Which leads to...
#3) what is the point of decrypting said personal communications except to vindicate the estranged party's already fully-formed assumption that their spouse is a wicked person, or to exact some kind of court-sanctioned revenge.
I swear, sometimes in threads like this it's hard to tell if someone is trolling or legitimately can't ponder the unintended (or, perhaps, fully intended but thinly veiled) consequences of laws that serve to grant the state access to private communications.
The post you're answering to basically asks why removing privacy from society is a bad thing. I think that a simple link such as [1] is enough as an answer to this fairly common question, troll or not.
[1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 ('I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy)
And why are getting angry? do you feel unfortable that my concerts my be legit?
Edit: You keep using the word "case". I do not think it means what you think it means.
1) Because (in the US) of the fifth amendment, as I had mentioned before and you, it seems, either missed or chose to ignore.
2) Decrypting the device would, due to forensic procedures, result first in an image being taken of the entire device, meaning that content outside the scope of any discovery process or search warrant would then become available to the judge/state/prosecutor/government, and said content, depending on specific judicial rules in effect, may also end up as a matter of public record. It also means that anything you've said on your device's record, no matter how relevant, can be held against you without your ability to exercise your rights to refrain from speaking.
Privacy isn't about keeping secrets, it's about controlling access to the truth and ensuring that you are able to take an active role in any action that results in the truth being disclosed to a party who has the authority to take said actions against you.
Similarly, the fifth amendment isn't designed to protect criminals from confessing a crime which they in fact committed, but to protect an innocent person's "truth" from being taken out of context and used to bias a judge or jury against them.
Honestly, the more I think about it, it does boil directly down to freedom from self-incrimination (e.g. saying something that would get you in trouble regardless of its applicability or truth). Leaders in our history had the presence of mind to recognize that an authority figure could easily choose to punish anything said by someone who was, according to procedure, supposed to be innocent.
It's a moot point (encryption) in civil issues anyway. A civil complaint should not allow any random person to use the power of the courts as a bully to force their enemies to disclose their private information. There's a reason civil and criminal procedure are so different.
w/o a proper answer, all I get is "Is not a case" and if I ask wht if there is case? I get people like you, so, do you have answer to the next question?:
What if there is case? why is it bad to use decryption there?
In my opinion it is important for society to maintain the privacy that humans have experienced for thousands of years. Remember that mass surveillance of every conversation that you have ever had is new thing. Before the internet society had much more privacy. Encryption is a way to ensure privacy in the internet era.
I'm taking your speech and applying my own context to it. Precisely what would happen to someone whose private communications are laid bare in a court of law, or indeed, to anyone.