[TallGuyShort]

Comparing it to a tape recorder is interesting. If we consider this device to be the same as a tape recorder for the purpose of admission of evidence: (1) In some states, by having this device and turning it on you have now indeed consented for the conversation to be recorded - which would alarm most users (2) In other states, it is illegal for the device to be functioning without consent of all who are conversing, and the recording is thus inadmissable as evidence. Quite the opposite of what I think you're implying by that comparison. We keep seeing that treating new technology under previous legal definitions is very unsteady ground. You can see how comparison to previous technology would protect privacy and hinder investigation in this case, but on the other hand it makes me think of compelling you to give up encryption keys because well, they're not "papers" like the 4th amendment refers to (an argument which HAS been used before). So given that, how am I supposed to know what my actual rights are in a case like this, when it's so freely interpreted either way depending on the specific case?

[phantarch]

Thanks for the insight.

In regards to comparing new technologies against previous ones to understand their legal definitions, it feels like the burden is on technologists to navigate us through the ethical minefield. I'm not very aware of what place ethicists have in many tech corporations, but it feels like most of us just build straight ahead and figure out the implications afterward. Not that we should halt progress on everything until we know if it's "good", but maybe a tech ethicist could be a kind of QA role during product development.

[TallGuyShort]

Definitely. I think I've heard Google has a handful of ethicists on staff? I don't think it's fair for the burden to be entirely on technologists either, though, but I don't know how else to progress. Uber & friends make an interesting case in this area too: Does that business model technically violate laws in various locales? Is it fair to existing taxi companies to just throw those laws away too quickly for them to plan or without re-addressing the original issue they were there for? Could they get lawmakers to re-assess the need for those laws before they had demonstrated their value and popularity? A lot of catch-22's.

[jedberg]

> but on the other hand it makes me think of compelling you to give up encryption keys because well, they're not "papers" like the 4th amendment refers to (an argument which HAS been used before).

That makes me think, what if I wrote the keys down on a piece of paper, and then told you I always copy it from the paper because I don't remember it. Then would I be protected by saying that my papers are protected and therefore so is the key?

[TallGuyShort]

"Clearly the defendant is trying to hide something now. If it pleases the crown, might we have a search warrant to seize the piece of paper?"