There is no shortage of justifications for new surveillance powers. One of the most worrisome is a trend to outlaw mere attempt to maintain your own privacy against intrusions. When this happens in your country talking.
This game of cat and mouse began with the analog lock. When making inquiries, the police were allowed into a physically locked container (chest, safe, bathroom ...) to examine its contents, if the holder individual was suspected of a relatively serious crime.
This n 't translate well to the digital environment.
it is true that the police always the right to confiscate the equipment and undergo forensic analysis, which is the equivalent of looking at the container from all angles and trying to break into, which was the equivalent analog power of enforcement.
But as people have learned to encrypt their data, it has become increasingly useless. Essentially, there was a lock in the digital that police could not open. (Of course, there had been such locks in the analog world too - and just like with digital encryption locks, it's just a matter of how much brute force (read money) you plow in breaking it.)
So in this game of cat and mouse, the law enforcement has learned to decode most file systems and make a forensic analysis of computers, regardless of that they are much more than private newspapers and private letters (which sometimes enjoy special protection in law just because of their sensitivity).
then because computers are so private, people started encrypt their data to protect it from all kinds of intruders, legal or not. First some pieces of data, and other things. Then whole computers.
In this digital transition, various bureaucrats realized they could get away with much more than they had ever had in the analog world, especially because leglislators do not think in terms of rights analog equivalent. So somewhere along the line, a police power to afford to try to enter people's privacy has become an imagined power and wanted always succeed to break the privacy of individuals. This is, of course, something quite different.
This trend is visible in the world. Using locally acceptable excuses of "terrorism" to "organized crime" laws now appear that outlaws same try to protect their secrets against intrusion.
In other words, bureaucrats and legislators starting to confuse and conflate the previous violence against an object with renewed violence against a suspect (forcing cooperation with the threat of violence).
They will present this as anything new, as a simple way to ensure that they "still" the former right - the right to attempt privacy breaking. this does not mean the right to succeed to do so. When this debate happens in your own country, speak.
Privacy remains your own responsibility.
0 Komentar