I suppose the difference here is surveillance vs investigation.
back
3 comments
The difference is A WARRANT.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The US Consititution is set out as definitive of "democracy", but it's vague, it's 200 years old, and apparently even eminent jurists can't agree on what it means. Oh - and it's irrelevant for anyone who isn't a US citizen (it doesn't apply to visitors or overseas residents).
The spirit of the law is being violated by a contorted interpretation of the letter of the law. I feel.
The US Constitution is set out as an iteration of a "republic", and the things you list are arguably strengths rather than weaknesses.
> Oh - and it's irrelevant for anyone who isn't a US citizen (it doesn't apply to visitors or overseas residents).
What country does this successfully? And making the bill of rights relevant to the entire world means violent adversaries are apparently not a concern.
It's not completely irrelevant for visitors. Some of the provisions apply to anyone subject to US courts, although it's not always clear which ones.
The Bill of Rights (in this case 4th amendment) applies to all people in the US regardless of citizenships.
There is also a type of worry that if cyber surveillance suddenly doesn't need a warrant than any group that is targeted by whatever party is in power (ie. whoever they don't like) suddenly are being surveilled, possibly for private speech/thought crimes, the definition of which could change every 2-4 years. I'm not saying that is true, but that would be the slippery slope version of this.
Americans don't understand the difference. specially if the phrasing also includes "children" or "communist"/"terrorist"
Who does? Europeans are mostly happy giving more power to their government including surveillance (they're tried to make end-to-end encryption illegal how many times now?). Australians allow the government to force companies to build backdoors.
Humans inherently care more about tangible past dangers repeating versus new potential dangers.
>Europeans are mostly happy giving more power to their government including surveillance (they're tried to make end-to-end encryption illegal how many times now?)
No, we aren't. And we haven't tried to ban end-to-end encryption. You're conflating the European political ruling class with regular European citizens. Our interests are mostly opposed, and we don't have a say on none of the shit they do. I get what you're trying to say, but until there's a popular vote held on any of those issues so we can blame general stupidity for how they are tackled, if at all, I'm blaming politicians.
You live in a democracy (thus have the power to vote), support the system they rule through and overall benefit from its policies.
edit: There's also polls that say European citizens are very much in favor or at least don't care enough to consider the negatives. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2656
>until there's a popular vote
If we're talking banning end-to-end encryption specifically, the general population is largely oblivious to it, or electronic privacy in general, or people wouldn't post like 90% of the stuff they put on Instagram.
I've watched a guy on YouTube discuss his experience buying a plot of land and building a house on it, and I think he straight up pointed out exactly where he lives, what car he drives and what not. No need to put effort into doxxing him, he did everything himself.
This might sound insane to you or me, but most people don't even think about it.
So if you seed couple articles and TV documentaries on how end-to-end encryption is bad because terrorists and pedophiles use it, and you as a law abiding citizen have nothing to fear, while not so carefully avoiding the other side of the coin, I think think the general population would vote for it.
This is all part of the freedom/privacy vs security balance discussion, which we don't have a good solution for.
>This might sound insane to you or me,
Why is it insane? For example, my address is more or less public record one you know my name since I purchased a piece of property. Keeping your name hidden while being a public figure is hard. So you'd need to use a shell company to buy the land ahead of time. Normal for movie stars probably but not for someone on YouTube. The vast majority of people don't view their own name as highly sensitive information to never give out. They use it every day all the time.
The risk is that the YouTuber pisses of someone and they swat him or try to steal the land or some such. What that really comes down to however is that "knowing my address someone can do an illegal act on me with impunity." Most people would view that as a societal or government problem versus one they should personally tackle by perpetually hiding. Hiding might be a viable short term or stop gap solution but if it's a long term requirement then you're living in a dystopia which most people would prefer not to.
> You're conflating the European political ruling class with regular European citizens.
The exact same thing can be said about "the Americans". In both regions there are more than enough people that want surveillance and banning of encryption, it's not just "the politicians" (because, you know, "think of the children/terrorists").
Yeah; Here in the USA, there's tons of folks you can explain how "Why should I worry? I have nothing to hide." is not a valid way to look at this issue until you're blue in the face, and they'll still "stick to their guns" that you're just bein' paranoid. Doesn't matter how many times throughout history or how many different ways the lesson's been taught; Some folks just don't "get it" until it's literally on their doorstep with weapons and handcuffs over some strange law they never even knew got passed for sayin' or doin' something they didn't even know was illegal or that anyone else even noticed them doin' or sayin'.
> they're tried to make end-to-end encryption illegal how many times now
Isn't the fact that they fail each time rather a sign that people don't want it, and are not happy with it?
Some fail, some succeed. Same as the US. That's my point.
In terms of terrorism, let's look at what France could do for the last almost 20 years:
> The ability of the government to establish “individual monitoring and surveillance measures” against individuals who present a “particularly serious” threat of terrorism.
> Police may access an individual's computer files without a warrant to prevent a terrorist act.
> Internet service providers and Internet cafes are required to retain login and connection data for one year and to provide this data to authorities if requested.
> Authorities may receive telephone and cell phone usage details, without the permission of a judge.
> Increased CCTV surveillance in public
> Identity checks, including on board international trains, are strengthened.
> The Prime Minister or a person qualified in the Interior Ministry may authorize listening devices to record conversations.