bbh

SpamSandwich said:

radarthekat said:

Some people seem to be combining privacy of communications between people using public infrastructure, where I think the argument has merit, with privacy of information stored locally on a person's device.  To my mind, the information on the device should be treated as an extension of mind, sacrosanct from forced search or inspection.  I keep notes, internal thoughts, on my iPhone that I have not shared with anyone.  Writing helps me to collect and express my thoughts on a particular subject, and until I've fully formed a view, I reserve the right to keep those thoughts private, just as though they were only inside my head.  I keep passwords in a spreadsheet, knowing that the full-device encryption keeps them safe.  This too is an extension of my imperfect memory, and I should have the right to privacy for that information, unless you think it'll be okay for law enforcement to scan and read information directly out of our heads in the future (techniques already exist, by the way).  

As to information you transmit out into the world, on this my view more closely matches government's.  If you harbor ill intents that you don't communicate to others, then the threat you represent to the world is somewhat contained, and just as though you kept those intents only within your own mind, the world should just have to take a risk that you won't be able to do significant damage.  The value of maintaining that barrier to future brain scanning, for which forced search of our personal electronic devices can be seen today as a proxy, outweighs the risk of what an individual can do against an entire society.  

It's when you begin to communicate those ill intends to others, recruiting them into your plans, that you become a greater danger to all of society.  This is the reason society accepts wire-tapping, for example, and other forms of surveillance like stake-outs and trackimg of a suspected evil-doer's actions in public spaces, along with the trail of associates they form.  But this can all be gathered externally to any search of their mind, or, by proxy, their personal electronic devices that act as a proxy for their internal thoughts and memories.  So on this I agree and I think it would not be out of bounds for government to forbid unbreakable end-to-end communications between devices.  That would give government access to the information and communications that create the most danger (collaboration across public space among those who would seek to conspire to do great harm to society) without exposing each individual's sacrosanct inner thoughts and intents. 

More madness. Our government exists to protect our constitutionally guaranteed rights. We do not exist to serve our government. I find your fealty to the state more disturbing than the extremely remote possibility of a foreign invasion, terrorist attack or mass murder. The state constantly relies on and inflates those threats to gain power over the population of scared sheep.