Hacker News Reader

Comment by kitbrennan | Hacker News Reader

Something we forget on Hacker News is that the vast majority of data and information requests are not made to spy on citizens without due cause.

The majority of requests are made because someone suspected of a crime (pick any crime: fraud, possession of child pornography, drug dealing) - and they believe there to be evidence on the device.

If we prevented legal authorities from accessing data on your phone, then in theory a peadophile would only have to ensure he/she downloads illegal images to their phone to ensure they cannot be caught.

---

The reason we have warrants is to ensure there is a second layer to verify that a search is proportionate. Obtaining information from a phone should certainly require a warrant issued by a judge; but it certainly should not be completely unobtainable.

View on HN

Don't particularly care for the example.... but going with your example: Assume the peadophile has photographic memory (or even just an active imagination). If we had the capability of reading out wetware memories from their biological brain (eg. via neural stimulation & recording), would those be searchable with warrants too?

I'm not saying there isn't a line to be drawn - obviously given your example most people would shrink away from the idea of using someones thoughts to convict (literal thought-crime).

It's a question of where we draw the line. If we don't allow a judge to issue a search warrant for a phone where there is reasonable suspicion of illegal activity - why should we allow a judge to issue a warrant to search a car/property/paper-work?

Of course that completely oversteps the line in the other direction though. Conviction rates for many crimes would drop through the floor if the legal authorities have no way of obtaining evidence.

Given how powerful smart phones have become and you come run a criminal enterprise solely through your phone, it is reasonable to expect that the police with a proper warrant would be able to inspect your phone.

But that's what the GP was referring to. "Personal electronic storage" is increasingly becoming an extension of our mind. It may be cellphones today, but the era of implantable media may not be far off.

In fact... for a pretty reasonable sum, I could build a sub-dermal implant beneath the skull with many GBytes of storage that is wirelessly powered and supports USB-like data rates. (See profile.) So this isn't an academic argument.

In reality, I think you could make a pretty reasonable case that my lab notebooks (whether paper or electronic) are just a "more accurate version of my wetware memories." I'm not sure I understand why this "brain extension" isn't afforded more protections accordingly.

I appreciate that this notion wasn't explicitly spelled out in the constitution -- these advances are REALLY new from a historical perspective. But I would wager: The laws will likely need to change.

"We obtain a pseudo-purge resulting from weakness of character and anxiety in the victim. In addition we violate one of democracy's basic tenets -- respect for the strength of man's character. We have always believed that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to hang one innocent -- in direct opposition to the totalitarian concept that it is better to hang ten innocent men than to let one guilty man go free. We may punish the guilty with this strategy of compelling a man to speak when his conscience urges him to be silent, but just as surely we break down the innocent by destroying their conscience."

"The Right to Be Silent" , The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing by Joost A. M. Meerloo, 1956

It might help your case to pick an example other than trotting out the old paedo boogeyman. I can see the point you're making, but there's a red flag for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" fear-mongering.

It's a pertinent example because we think of peodophiles making photos - which is something phones are very good at.

However, it doesn't require much of an imagination to think of other scenarios:

* Keeping records of drug sales on a phone. * Messaging a hitman to carry out a murder. * Recording days and times of homes being empty in preparation for a break in.

Talking about the majority of requests is irrelevant, because the average is greatly skewed. The NSA's bulk surveillance program encompasses few (if any) requests, but almost certainly collects more data than all the lawful requests combined, probably by several orders of magnitude.

I think it's fine to issue a legitimate warrant for the information stored on someone's phone. But then it's up to the authorities to execute that warrant. If the phone is so well protected that the authorities can't execute their warrant, too bad so sad for them. Just because there's no equivalent of a battering ram for digital devices doesn't mean manufacturers should be required to deliberately cripple their products.

I believe Apple should be required to unlock this phone (with reasonable compensation for their efforts), but this is going to be a limited thing as the older OSes fade, since the newer ones can't be unlocked even by them.

> in theory a peadophile would only have to ensure he/she downloads illegal images to their phone to ensure they cannot be caught.

Only it ensures no such thing. If the police have probable cause to suspect you of a crime then they'll have access to your phone metadata, financial records, etc. With a warrant they can put a microphone and camera in your house. There are ten thousand other ways to convict someone who is actually guilty.

But is it really?

Look up NSA and loveint, and other such abuses of intel. As well as the age old industrial espionage. Is the majority of it really aimed towards protection?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com