[igama]

"If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in." That's what currently takes, place, Government doesn't have the keys, they have to use force to get in, or other methods. (However there are physical limits to materials, so there is usually a way to break in)

But, by having a special key that opens all the doors, anyone could copy it - yes rules can put in place to who as access, etc, etc, but by knowing there is a "hole" in each device, every possible malicious agent will try and break it as soon as possible. Then what?

We have seen examples by Law Enforcement officers using accesses to gather data that would required a court order, but they didn't have one, and it was for personal reasons. So, how does that work out?

[jcranberry]

The police are not the only ones who can get a battering ram.

>But, by having a special key that opens all the doors, anyone could copy it - yes rules can put in place to who as access, etc, etc, but by knowing there is a "hole" in each device, every possible malicious agent will try and break it as soon as possible.

This is true in theory but it this a risk in practice?

>We have seen examples by Law Enforcement officers using accesses to gather data that would required a court order, but they didn't have one, and it was for personal reasons. So, how does that work out?

You sue for damages under section 1983.

[candiodari]

> This is true in theory but it this a risk in practice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard

TLDR: yes. Especially for companies and political dissidents (because countries, including the US, have used their secret and not-so-secret services to go after these. China vs Dalai Lama seems to be a rather well-known example, as is the theft of Airbus secrets by the NSA (not that the EU didn't do the same to Boeing). And if you can't trust the NSA with those keys, who exactly do you suggest we trust ?)

> You sue for damages under section 1983.

Ok, well let's keep in mind that this police officer was not convicted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

So unless you've got better cause for complaint than 12 bullets in your back and more than one witness, why even bother trying ?

I don't get where people get the idea that cops are somehow above ridiculous abuse of the system. When it comes to direct abuse of surveillance:

https://jezebel.com/cop-previously-charged-with-stalking-sho...

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/prosecutors-cop-us...

Note the duration of time these police officers were allowed to proceed, even after complaints were filed. Years.

The problem with any system that consists of people, is that people can be total immoral and criminal. Including, of course, Law enforcement, even judges. That means that we should make such systems safe even if groups of people within them conspire to commit crimes. Failure to do so can result in incredible damage to people. For a very recent example:

https://www.thelocal.it/20190628/italian-police-uncover-gang...

TLDR: the major, police, social workers, youth services and psychiatrists conspired to kidnap children and sell them to brothels, sex shop owners, and whoever else paid them ... out of hundreds of children stolen in this way, 2 have been returned after these people got caught.

Of course it was subsequently revealed that there are multiple dozen municipalities where such conspiracies existed. The state immediately intervened to stop all investigations except the one that had already made the paper "la Republica".

There is not a single European country where members of youth services haven't been caught doing the same, from Romania, to Sweden, to France, to the Netherlands.

[jcranberry]

A police officer does not need to be convicted criminally for you to get money from the state. If they've treated you unconstitutionally or unlawfully you're within you're rights to sue for damages under section 1983.

[jcranberry]

A police officer does not need to be convicted criminally for you to get money from the relevant government. If they've treated you unconstitutionally or unlawfully you're within you're rights to sue for damages under section 1983.

[tootie]

How do you know nobody has a copy of your house key? I live in an apartment building and it's actually mandatory for the super to be able to enter my apartment in emergencies so he has a key.

[amdavidson]

That's not the argument they made.

I do not know that there is no one out there in the world who has a key to my house. Even if there was and someone found that key on a city street they would likely not be able to figure out which house it opened.

I know there is no legally mandated key to everyone's house that would allow anyone to enter whomever's house they please.

[jdsnape]

well, there is kinda a key is that lets anyone in - in the UK they call it 'the enforcer' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcer_(battering_ram)

If an officer does something that should require a court order and don't have one then they end up prosecuted in the same way a criminal would be. You put checks and balances in place to make sure that they are caught.

[viklove]

The problem is using "the enforcer," breaking in, and taking file cabinets is loud and obvious. Accessing your gmail account and dumping its entire history takes seconds and is entirely unnoticeable.

You can't compare physical and digital privacy, why are people still trying it?