> Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity is a human right and we should always work towards at any cost
Why have an original take when you can argue against a ridiculous straw man?
Why have an original take when you can argue against a ridiculous straw man?
And if you are about to say "as long as they have a warrant..." keep in mind that the warrant is likely to access privacy-violating information that should not have been collected in the first place (according to privacy advocates).
> If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy.
Detective work seemed to happen just fine before digital money when there was only cash. Blanket surveillance didn't happen because it was impossible or too costly to do. I'm not saying anything about this theoretical "strong privacy".
> Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash.
Why should law abiding citizens have their rights taken away because some people abuse it? We have the second amendment protecting rights that are arguably much more dangerous, despite how they're abused by criminals. In my opinion, privacy advocates are asking for something much less, and with much less potential for violence -- the ability to make a purchase when they're perfectly law abiding, without some rando recording that, and having it leaked on the Internet for god knows what to happen with it.
Cops wanting access to people's private data is just lazy. They already have access to my cell location records, financial records, surveillance cameras, the testimony of any business that I've visited, and all my public social media. If they want to arrest me for something, they have all the info they need from public channels, they don't also need to intercept my boyfriend's butt pics.
What really makes an investigator's job impossible is when two people meet in the same place and have a private conversation. Are we saying that the digital equivalent of that shouldn't be allowed?