[boomer918]

E2E apps and fully encrypted phones prevent the police from executing legitimate search warrants. This has never been the case with traditional communication mechanisms, e.g. phones, mail.

I agree that privacy is important, but it's not absolute, by law. So what we're saying is E2E apps are more important than current law we have, and we want to invalidate the ability of the police to investigate crime.

How can that make sense?

[kenmacd]

> e.g. phones, mail.

What about all the in-person conversations. Seems those might be considered just a bit more traditional than phones conversations, and haven't been subject to those same search warrants.

> So what we're saying is E2E apps are more important than current law we have, and we want to invalidate the ability of the police to investigate crime. > > How can that make sense?

(*proposed* British online safety legislation)

Let's expand on that then: how can it make sense what humans can have in-person conversations that are not subject to search warrants. These e2e-private-in-person conversations prevent the state from investigating crime.

If police should be able to always access your digital information, would you support the same in the case of non-digital information. Should building codes be updated to require microphones be installed in very room?

If you're not in support of microphones in every room, then please tell me why the conversation between two parties, be they lovers or criminals, should lose it's ability to be private the moment it crosses the internet?

[efnx]

What folks are saying is that requiring a backdoor in encryption for “blessed” individuals is wrong. I can tell from your comment that you trust cops. Not all of us do (at least - not all of us trust all cops) and so we don’t want ANY cops to have a backdoor through EVERY encryption, for fear of what ONE of them may do, or ONE person in their chain of trust may do.

[boomer918]

Sounds like we need to change the law to make privacy absolute, which of course will prevent legitimate crime investigations. We can't have it both ways here.

[efnx]

> which of course will prevent legitimate crime investigations

It would not prevent legitimate crime investigations, it would only keep that specific information obscured.

[nerdbert]

You think no nefarious actors have ever used coded messages or even one-time pads to communicate via phone and email before the digital age?