| > 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? |