Right, but the communication is happening over encrypted, disappearing messages. If you had a microphone or a camera all it would capture is a guy sitting in a chair tapping on his phone.

But all this assuming you found probable cause to surveil a citizen in the first place. Where's the probable cause coming from?

And that's assuming that they can even figure out who the higher level bosses are in the first place.

▲

kuschku 2 days ago | parent [-]

> But all this assuming you found probable cause to surveil a citizen in the first place. Where's the probable cause coming from?

There's a basic right to privacy, which can only be restricted with probable cause. Your argument sounds like you disagree with this very basic premise?

	▲	testdelacc1 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It’s stunning how poor all the replies on this thread have been. Not even an attempt to read what I’m saying. No, I don’t disagree with the need for probable cause. I was asking, how do you build the case for probable cause against someone you’ve never seen and whose communication is completely encrypted? You can’t. I don’t have a solution for that, and I don’t think anyone does. I am merely pointing out that it’s a problem, and that the police’s suggested solution is surveillance.