johnnash

radarthekat said:

The whole situation needs to be thought through from the ground up.  Here's a scenario I play in my mind to get my head around this.  

Imagine there's a bad guy out there with an idea in his head for a Dr. Evil super weapon that could do enormous damage to the world.  The bad guy keeps this knowledge to himself, storing the designs for the weapon only on his personal phone, which is protected with strong encryption.  And then the bad guy dies.  End result, no harm, no foul.  In this scenario, his phone served merely as an extension of his mind, allowing him to flesh out his ideas in a document stored on his phone rather than relying solely upon his own imperfect memory.  Because he died before ever communicating his ideas beyond his own mind and his secure phone the world is safe from this super weapon, until someone else independently comes up with the same idea.  And while he was living, the world was safe from his super weapon as long as he did nothing to share the idea and design with others who could help him build it.  

Now let's imagine an alternate scenario, where the bad guy with the super weapon design instead shares the idea and designs beyond the sanctuary of his mind and secure smartphone.  It's when a dangerous plan is shared with others who can act upon it that the information represents a danger to the world.

So this is where you might want to draw a line.  Information stored under strong encryption on a smartphone or other personal device might be treated as an extension of our minds, sacrosanct from forced inspection.  But information communicated out to the world, where it can be put into motion and effect, should not retain the same rights to perfect privacy.  If I enter the name and phone number of a known terrorist into my contacts list, this should be private and protected information.  But if there's a record of my having placed or received a call from that terrorist, then this indicates a potential of threat, that I might be collaborating with the terrorist.  And so the fact of the actual communication is what government should be fighting to access (via the phone company and not via my handset), not the fact that I merely have the terrorist's contact information on my phone.  And the actual text or voice communications I had with the terrorist, representing the actual communications that might have spread a dangerous idea among multiple people, this too should be of interest to law enforcement, also accessed via the telecommunications provider.  So I understand the whole wiretapping concept, with proper warrant and cause.  But I think it should cover the actual communications between potentially [suspected] conspirators, not the content on their phones which potentially includes information they never shared with anyone, and therefore represents their private thoughts, with the phone's encrypted storage acting as a proxy for their memories.

Rosyna said:

lkrupp said:

Are you saying you have a Constitutional right to drive an automobile? Courts have long ruled that you do not have such a right. You are perfectly free to refuse the proposed textalyzer test. You have that right. You just can’t drive a car for the next ninety days if you do.

You have a 4th Amendment right to not be searched in an unreasonable manner (this law violates that) and you have a 5th Amendment right to due process and protection from self-incrimination (this law violates that).

The fact driving is not a constitutional right doesn't trump your actual constitutional rights. And courts cannot punish you if you refuse to waive your constitutional rights.