> “Police have a duty to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry,” Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for criminal justice, said in a statement. “Those now frequently extend into the devices of victims and witnesses as well as suspects — particularly in cases where suspects and victims know each other.”

> Most sexual assaults are committed by people who are known to the victims, and there might be electronic proof of friendly communications between them. As a result, according to Victim Support, a nonprofit group in England and Wales, the new policy could discourage victims from reporting, fearing that they will not be believed.

> But the form was criticized because of the possible repercussions for victims who refuse to lay bare their digital lives: The police and prosecutors might drop their cases.

The opposition is just nonsense.

If you complain a crime has been committed, it's always been expected that your property can be searched for evidence, and that if you refuse to cooperate, they might not proceed with your case.

If you claim that an assault happened on your property, but refuse to allow police to investigate because it might reveal exculpatory evidence or unrelated things you don't want found, they're likely to drop your case as well.

I'm tired of these advocates for regressive policies using victims as macabre totems for their causes:

There's a reason we require police to be able to investigate, and it's a good one.