[Alupis]

> So your contribution to this discussion

> it's unlikely to bear heavily on this discussion either.

Why so much snark anytime someone disagrees with you?

> If the 5th Amendment doesn't protect your personal diary --- and it doesn't --- and it doesn't prevent the government from wiretapping your phone

You're interpretation is flat out wrong. Let me quote a few sections for you:

> nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Seizing someone's electronic communications certainly does make a great witness against oneself, especially when the communications were seized without a warrant.

> nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Again, seizing communications en masse without a warrant for each communication is expressly against even the most rootementary interpretation of the 5th Amendment. There is no due process of law here. In fact, we know some people are in prison thanks to Parallel Construction - the exact opposite of due process.

[tptacek]

This is such a weird argument. You clearly can be compelled to produce private documents as evidence. A private document you wrote is in the exact same sense self-testimony. I don't doubt that you can conjure a first-principles argument that the law says otherwise, but the reality you'll end up in won't be the one we share now.

I got snarky because of the "sir" in the parent comment. I SAY GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR.

Totally fair game to ding me for doing that, though.

[Alupis]

> You clearly can be compelled to produce private documents as evidence.

You are correct - but only via due process (court order/warrant, etc..).

What we have here is not due process - but rather systematic bulk collection and inspection of all electronic communications from every citizen. These private communications are then sifted through, looking for anything of interest... and if found, we then (sometimes) go get a warrant to retro-actively wiretap your communications. That's not legal, but it's what's going on.

Regarding full-device encryption - it's the same thing. You need a warrant to compel me to turn over my device. No law makes it legal for the government to "hack" into your device remotely and inspect it's contents (unless you have a specific warrant). If the individual refuses to turn over the device or decrypt it, it's no different than someone refusing to turn over a written letter... and we have punishments for these actions. We don't need to ban encryption for this, we already have mechanisms in place to handle these situations.

[tptacek]

Again, who are you arguing with? Abuses of systematic collection are a great reason to support universal encryption. Certainly, it's the primary reason I support it.

[Alupis]

> Again, who are you arguing with?

Why do you keep trying to shut this down? I'm clearly arguing against points you have made in the quotes cited in my post.

> Abuses of systematic collection are a great reason to support universal encryption. Certainly, it's the primary reason I support it.

I think we finally agree here. I just don't know why you appear to keep making counter arguments if this is how you truly feel.

[tptacek]

Because systematic collection isn't the only, or even the most important, issue at stake in the "going dark" debate.

[Alupis]

Then what is at stake here?

We have essentially a decade of evidence to show having access to electronic communications (both encrypted and not) has little to zero effect on law enforcement's ability to do their job.

Just recently, the Paris attackers use unencrypted cell phone text messages to coordinate and plan their attack. Nobody detected it...

Before that, the FBI successfully caught Ross Ulbricht, through good 'ol police work (because they couldn't beat his encryption and proxy usage).

We don't need access to private communications (both encrypted and not) in order to conduct lawful law enforcement -- we just need better law enforcement practices.

All this anti-encryption rederick put forth by the government is really just smoke and mirrors, covering up systematic failures of law enforcement.