Do libraries not keeping records of who has read what books not allow law enforcement to do their job?
Do prohibitions against arbitrary searches not allow law enforcement to do their job?
Does having to make a plausible argument in front of a judge not allow law enforcement to do their job?
Do individuals not having a number tattooed on their forehead not allow law enforcement to do their job?
Law enforcement continually frames any pereceived difficulty as if it is prevents them, which is utterly disingenuous. Law enforcement's "job" is to operate within the constraints of a free society composed of innocent people, in spite of the extra work from not being able to just shoot the bad guy like in the movies. When they don't respect this, they're merely another criminal element.
In the US, the idea of the publicly funded law enforcement officer can trace its lineage back to antebellum slave catchers.
Much like they now (and forever) frame any perceived difficulty as preventing them from doing their job, they've successfully re-framed their role in society as protecting and serving (people) instead of protecting and serving (property rights), despite that obviously not being the case.
Compare this to the situation in Europe and Asia (or at least the civilized parts like Japan), where it's perfectly acceptable and normal to ask a policeman for directions. And where their role is indeed to protect and serve people (not property).
"Police have the role of protecting and serving people" really does not feel like such a controversial viewpoint to me.
In fact, these high profile cases the FBI et al attempt to use as wedges generally involve someone who has already been caught with plenty of evidence, but the authoritarian impulse still demands more.
As far as laws that can only be enforced/observed by reading people's private thoughts and communications, then yes indeed, why have those at all?
Law enforcement agencies send legal requests to Google and Facebook all the time, and the sky hasn't fallen.
Actually, for all X where X exists, the sky hasn't fallen :)
I think we can agree that, say, putting a chip in everyone's heads that transmits their thoughts to the government would indeed, as you put it, cause the sky to fall. I'm not trying to suggest that outlawing encryption is the exact same thing, but I do believe it would cause much more injustice than it would prevent.
Which is another reason why consolidating everyone's data into a few centralized locations is also problematic.
> While this process does have weaknesses, it is still the difference between a legal process overseen by the courts and one based on espionage where agents do whatever they want without oversight.
But that's not what we're talking about here. The question isn't whether the police should need to get a warrant, it's whether the government should be able to prohibit technology that preserves privacy because some criminals might use it alongside all the law abiding citizens.
And encryption doesn't "prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs" -- that's just a trope. What it does is make their jobs more expensive. Even if they can't just get a copy of all your communications from a megacorp by filing some papers, they can still get a warrant and then plant bugs or guess your password or plant bugs that allow them to observe you entering your password etc. It's not impossible, it just takes more resources to do it -- which prevents it from happening at a massive scale.
That's a feature, not a bug. It still lets them solve murders, because murders are serious and uncommon and can justify the expense of a real investigation. It may make it inexpedient to spend those resources to catch every last hooker and pothead, but so what? Sometimes it's not worth the candle. If you think it really is, give them more money instead of giving everyone else less privacy. But sometimes it just isn't. Sometimes it costs more to solve a crime than to not solve it.
Meanwhile (this is the feature) it doesn't make it too easy for them to identify all the people in group X and give the list to Joe McCarthy or round them all up and put them in internment camps. Law enforcement should have some friction, because when it happens too fast at too large a scale, history shows this to be Bad.
There is no principle that says governments (as representatives of the people) can't regulate what technologies people can have. Sometimes we decide that yes, the government should do this. Consider how the FCC regulates electronic devices to prevent radio interference. Enforcement is lax and as a hobbyist you aren't likely to get caught, but devices aren't commonly found in retail stores that don't have FCC approval.
There are many practical issues, of course, including making sure there is a balance of power and that law enforcement powers aren't abused. I agree with that part.
My take is that even with a warrant, law enforcement's reach into private data should be limited for a free society.
I guess if you're preparing for the apocalypse you don't count on that, though?
The Supreme Court just ruled that you can’t sue law enforcement for civil rights violation - including killing people unjustly.
While this process does have weaknesses, it is still the difference between a legal process overseen by the courts and one based on espionage where agents do whatever they want without oversight.
Note that strong network encryption is essential for ensuring that they have to get a warrant.
I don't think anyone has come up with a better system than judicial oversight that still allows law enforcement to do their job?