[9rx]

Huh? The encrypted data is at rest and the only person who knew the key is dead. Your plan makes no sense.

[kube-system]

Generally the set of people who are relevant in the debate of the balance of privacy rights and criminal prosecution, are living.

Dead people are distinctly immune to prosecution, and generally granted fewer rights.

[9rx]

If you intended to reply to a different thread and accidentally ended up here instead, there is truth to what you say, but it has nothing to do with this one.

As it pertains to this thread, where the sole key holder is dead and took the knowledge with him, how do you anticipate to carry out gaining access to the data using live attacks? There are plenty of reasons why the government wants access to data even where prosecution isn't necessary.

[kube-system]

The overlap between data that was never shared and data that is relevant after the person was dead is excruciatingly small.

[9rx]

It is excruciatingly small in all cases, which is why laws haven't been crafted yet. But if that changes...

[like_any_other]

Is encrypted data at rest belonging to dead people such a problem, that it's worth sacrificing everyone's privacy?

[9rx]

> that it's worth sacrificing everyone's privacy?

Is the appeal to emotion really necessary? Surely we can discuss the facts without devolving into some kind of "But I want that!!!" toddler behaviour?

[like_any_other]

There was no emotion, only an accurate description of the consequences of the proposed policy.

[9rx]

I said appeal to emotion. There is no logical foundation for the question. It can only be asked in the context of how one arbitrarily feels about the subject, serving no purpose, and derailing was taking place for no good reason. How you one feels about the subject has no impact on what we are talking about and trying to draw a link between them is completely nonsensical.