[exw]

<<Actually it is not what we're talking about, because they're not blind, they can use usual means of inquiry, and the technology. How comes already there are no firearm firing sound detectors, or remote-controlled drones with tasers in major streets to react instantly, ect...? There are ways to act which don't strip citizens from their power, as information nowadays is power.>>

That's actually exactly what we are talking about. The police's job is to enforce the law, and as technology changes, they need to adapt, the same way firearms now have serial numbers, and they collect DNA samples / fingerprints (all of which have met similar resistance before they became a broadly adopted technology, and are also open to abuse).

It's totally fine to have a rational discussion of where, as a society, we want to draw a line, but let's please keep our own rhetoric in check - there are lots of scenarios (outside the high visibility of this case) where, with proper legal controls, enabling the police to be able to access someone's phone is the equivalent of a traditional search order that allows the police to enter someone's premises and search for evidence.

[runamok]

And more and more we see those methods are quite fallible but sold to the public as proof positive: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.h...

The point is the government is already not respecting the rule of law with all the 'secret FISA court' stuff nor does their foreign policy seem capable of making us safer. I am loathe to give them more weapons against activists, politicians, journalist and the discontented when they have greatly earned our distrust.

[EdHominem]

Even if the "Searching X is like searching Y" were true which it rarely is, the issue is that "proper legal controls" don't get executed. Even in the traditional realm.

Once we have transparency and controls in place to make sure traditional laws are being used properly we can begin a careful deliberation on expanding those laws.