[didntcheck]

> under a very strict legal framework and behind a colossal amount of bureaucracy to authorize their use.

In other words we'll provide some comedy material for our "trusted agencies" to amuse themselves with, between writing their latest summary snooping system and sharing stolen nudes round the office

[peoplefromibiza]

First of all, the justice system revolves around the rule of the law, homicides are forbidden, doesn't mean that it is hard to kill someone, it's simply prohibited by the law and people tend not to do it.

Wiretaps use the same pattern, potentially it is very easy to listen to other people's conversation, but it is unlawful unless authorized, so people usually don't do it.

Imagine this scenario: a man only contacts the phone number of some woman when the phone of his wife is out of town, plus the man's phone can be located at the woman's house only at night when the wife is away.

What can that mean? Who knows...

That kind of data, which is equally revealing and privacy breaking, is completely legal. Why is that? Because tech corporations don't really care about what you say, but about your habits, to exploit them.

The justice system OTOH doesn't work in aggregates and patterns, it decides case by case, because every person is responsible of their actions and only theirs.

So the two use cases are vastly different and the tension towards complete and unbreakable secrecy is not 100% aligned with the interests of a society at large. Only a very tiny minority benefits from that.

Agencies snooping is illegal too, but they are out of the law anyway. "Licence to Kill" is the title of a Bond movie precisely for that reason.