Remix clone Hacker News

I think the inherent contradiction stands. You are right to point it out.

However, there _is_ another side to it: the law enforcement agencies have a harder job now and it needs to be acknowledged as such.

The acknowledgement does not require agreeing to let up on fundamental principles of privacy. But, so that resources could be invested in ways that do not require hoovering up people's personal data en masse.

▲

dghlsakjg 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Harder in what sense?

Criminal communications have always existed, and I don’t buy that a smartphone is a fundamental change from encoded letters, whispers, or any more primitive signaling device. With an electronic surveillance warrant it is easier than ever to compromise communications. If they suspect that a crime is being committed they should use the existing legal framework that exists for exactly this purpose.

	▲	curious_cat_163 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Harder in the sense that never before in human history could any person communicate with any other person on most of the inhabited planet through instant wireless internet. They can do all this with end-to-end encryption, if sufficiently motivated, via apps like Signal. Most (I would hazard > 99%) people won't use this capability for criminal enterprise. Some would. Some do. BTW, This does not mean that we should open illegal backdoors to our end-to-end encryption. Private communication must remain possible and viable and easy for everyone. It also does not mean that law enforcement should resort to unconstitutional means (at least in the US). But, this is just a different game than what they are used to. It is okay to acknowledge it and resource them to do without.
	▲	coretx 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Harder" is a blue extremist lie. The information position of law enforcement has never been this good before. Yet they ask for more - a clear indication for their true motive: Power.