<http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6058#more-6058>
Thanks, Jim."While an electronic device undoubtedly holds evidence that might be useful to law enforcement, it has also become so closely integrated with our persons that it has become an extension of our mind, and those parts of the black box must be protected as much as we would protect the rights of a person to their own thoughts."
Excellent point, but not a quantifiable, and thus likely to be deemed unimportant. Subjective stuff, and thus over the head of the nuts-and-bolts, pragmatic people who write the laws and regulations."The FBI today is looking for the easy solution, and that easy way out is also the reason we have such poor police work in today's field of law enforcement."
Sure. Isn't that what all organizations will do? When they start learning about an unfamiliar topic, they bring in the experts. But what they do with the experts is watch what they do and reduce it to a formula, so they can eliminate the expensive experts. Much is lost, of course, but it's "good enough".
"The claim that law enforcement needs access to on-device content to prosecute crimes is a farce."
No matter. They'll try to get it anyway, because getting it is cost free. It costs the investigator nothing to sic the power of unlimited government resources onto an individual or organization.
When they push so hard they trigger a court case ruling that what they want to do is unconstitutional, then they have needlessly made their investigation "expensive".
__._,_.___
Posted by: Jim Saklad <jimdoc@icloud.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (3) |
Upgrade your account with the latest Yahoo Mail app
Get organized with the fast and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail app. Upgrade today!
.
__,_._,___