- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Controversial opinion: maybe it’s a good thing to allow law enforcement to access communications when necessary (e.g. with a court warrant)
Do we want serious criminals like terrorists and paedophiles to be able to plan their crimes with impunity?
If that means compromising encryption, which it does, then the benefits to everyone of end-to-end encryption and the protection it affords against both government overreach/abuse and third-party intruders tend to outweigh the benefits of government surveillance through encryption backdoors.
Maybe only the biggest companies should be required to be able to decrypt certain messages if a court warrant is produced. Privacy fans could use services exempt from this requirement, like Signal. But there are laypeople who just use iMessage because it’s the default, and you could catch criminals sending bad stuff over iMessage.
I think there are valid concerns on both sides of the argument… but I am just imagining if you have a group of violent people planning an attack over iMessage, I want law enforcement to be able to read those messages.
Can’t law enforcement already read those messages by getting a warrant to seize the suspect’s phone and attempting to break into it? Why do they suddenly need to preemptively break into everyone’s phone?
I guess I think of it like bugging a phone. The technology for bugging phones has been around for a long time, but that doesn’t mean the authorities are bugging everybody’s phones all the time. Even if they can theoretically listen to everyone’s conversations, that doesn’t mean they are always listening. There would be too many conversations to listen to.