[40acres]

In general, I agree with the government stance that "warrant proof" communication is not in the best interests of US citizens. I believe that there is some precedent and established law that can be built upon to provide a compromise that allows for encryption to remain a strong privacy tool for society but one that does not hinder the state from lawful access.

I believe that the US should establish a court similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court created under the FISA Act. The government must make a case to a judge establishing probable cause, and if approved a warrant can be issued to a 3rd party communications provider to disable encryption on suspected devices such that lawful interception (i.e wiretap) can be executed.

Warrants are subject to renewal every 90 days and access to encrypted communications prior to the date of warrant approval and not provided by the platform specified in the warrant are prohibited (ie, obtaining a warrant to disable and intercept WhatsApp does not mean you can disable and intercept Signal as well).

I believe this balances the interests of individuals, governments and communication providers evenly.

[ericns]

The FISA Court isn't a legitimate court of law. Why would you want another one? There is no adversary there, it's one branch arguing to violate the Constitution while that same branch pretends to defend the target. It the Star Chamber of Technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

How often are the people making the arguments from the same political party? This problem extends to pretty much every court, as we currently have 3 branches being gamed by 2 political parties.

This will be one of the fracture lines that break the country.

[syn0byte]

Warrant proof communication is absolutely in the best interests of the citizens for exactly the same reason it's not in the best interest of the ruling government.