[evandale]

Not OP but yeah. I don't buy into the whole "to protect you from bad people I need to erode your rights" argument.

Never made sense to me. Terrorists and other very bad people usually aren't in the business of following laws so I don't know what crimes you'd prevent by weakening the rights of everyone else.

[xp84]

I'm very unaware exactly what the issue is with this particular case, so be gentle, but what is the difference between the government agencies doing their job to stop criminals, and evil rights-destroying which it sounds like you are clearly convinced is what's going on?

Let's say someone stole your identity and in the process they emailed all your financial documents to example.anon12345(at)gmail. If you contacted the police and the FBI subpoenaed Google to force them to give them the details of whatever they know about that accountholder, is that bad and hurting the rights of somebody, or is it protecting your rights?

Does it change based on the despicableness level of the crime suspected? From one count of copyright infringement of a Taco Bell commercial, to organized retail theft rings, to identity theft, to CSAM, to terrorism?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what the "We hate subpoena power" argument is so I can decide where I stand on it. I feel mildly like I'm not as bothered as you are, but I suspect I'm missing something.

Also, should "online" operate under different rules than offline? If the "feds" have probable cause that some guy is a drug kingpin and they break into his office and his safe to seize evidence, is that equally bad as forcing Google to open up his Gmail account for them?

[M3L0NM4N]

I mean, surveillance reduces crime. Wherever you fall on the spectrum of surveillance/privacy, I can guarantee if the government read everything everyone wrote/texted/read and recorded their every move, there would be less crime.

[menus]

Great to know that. I'll let the parents of Uvalde know how surveillance reduced crime on the 1 year anniversary of the school shooting.

Surveillance does not reduce crime, tending to people's basics needs so that they don't need to commit crimes reduces crimes.

[xp84]

Is a subpoena of 5 specific users' data, presumably with the purpose of getting evidence about things that already happened, the same as 'surveillance'?

> the government read everything everyone wrote/texted/read

is this really a relevant analogy for this? And yes, I've heard of the mass surveillance via telco that we did find out (through Snowden) was happening, and do think it seriously crossed the line. I'm just wondering if this kind of case at issue has anything in common with that malfeasance at all.

Is it your belief that they lacked any probable cause and are actually trying to persecute those 5 people for some reason?

Rather than try to argue against a position I'm not fully understanding, I'd like to hear how you think police should solve crimes with a significant "cyber" component.

[M3L0NM4N]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for it. But if people couldn't use the internet/communications to plan or communicate criminal activities, crime would reduce (to some degree, meaningful or not).