Well, what you’ve stated is a Socratic debate, where two people of equal knowledge debate to bring the discussion to a higher level.

Do you visit Ars Technica? Those are EXTREMELY intelligent commenters (for the most part). Yet, most, when it comes to privacy, think the government is comparable to Nazi Germany. It’s like, if the government wants to crack down on an ISP for being abusive, it’s the best thing in the world (which I agree with), but if…

Have other 1st world nations criminalized encryption? I’m not aware of this. Can you link a source?

I’m not doing anything under my real name because there are insane people who would disagree with me who would seek to harm me.

Well, you’re right, a lot of law is analogy because if there’s no precedent on point, you have to figure out where the law should go. But, it shouldn’t be based on bad analogies. It should be a logical extension of where the law was.

Ah, got it. So, instead of actually engaging on the merits, you attempt ad hominem.

You do realize that the 6th amendment guarantees an attorney in a criminal trial, right? You also realize that Sec. 1983 has a fee shifting statute that makes the loser pay for attorney’s fees? You also realize that a civil rights case will be tried on a contingency fee basis? Lastly, you realize you can file in forma…

I think we’re disagreeing on what “burdensome” means. It’s not what could happen. It’s what will it take to do this.

Or, in the voice one, the government asks the company that created the voice lock to override the encryption. I’m ok with that so long as it’s pursuant to court order.

You literally advocate that we should just burn it down because politics as failed. That’s apathy. You’re apathetic because you think there can be no change through the political process. So, unless you’ve been lying in every statement, I know that aspect of you quite well.

No I’m not the only lawyer. But, I am talking on here with another lawyer who disagrees with my stance. But, we’re talking about law. He (or she) is not just saying, “you’re wrong, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

I have no idea, but I don’t think we can use that as an analogy. I would imagine, prior to digital environments, most encrypted communication wasn’t protected by the threat of data destruction. I could be wrong about that, but that’d involve some kind of explosive, fire, or acid maybe. I doubt it was commonly used, if…

Actually, it makes my analysis worth more than any single person’s on here who isn’t as credentialed as I am. See that works?

No. What I have defined is known as a “warrant” which is a valid method of search under the 4th Amendment.

Well, the voice thing would likely violate the 5th Amendment. So, that analogy is no good.

You’re absolutely right, why is technology any different. For the 240 years that this country has existed, the government, pursuant to a valid warrant, has had the right to search and seize anything. Why does this piece of technology get to change a fundamental aspect of our justice system that has no precedent for…

Lawyers. If the police overstep the bounds of the warrant, your criminal defense lawyer (you’re guaranteed one by the 6th Amendment) files a motion for suppression. Additionally, you can file a Sec. 1983 suit in civil court for violation of the 4th Amendment. Those pay out too, you can get triple damages.

Yes... what an intelligent response. I’m so glad you decided to address the merits and fill us in on your, clearly, informed opinion. You don’t sound like a mouth-breathing retard at all.

It depends. If it’s a warrant, then the government gets the raw data. If it’s through a discovery process (like in civil litigation or something), I can ask for a summary instead of reading through 1,000s of pages.

I agree it changes it, but it’s not creating something new. It’s just not. As I said, removing a door from my house (and I think we can all agree, a door is a pretty fundamental part of a house) does not mean I’ve created a new house.