The obvious counter is that raiding a house is a very public and relatively expensive action. There's a natural disincentive to it. OTOH digital surveillance is more akin to being a ghost who can float through a door without anyone ever knowing you're there, and teleport there and back instantly with no physical time or effort
I think this is the big change people miss when it comes to police powers in the digital age. There's not been really been a culture shift from the police nor the citizens about police powers, just a increase in quantity of ability that has turned into a difference in quality. For decades agents of the state have had the theoretical ability to surveil people, and the people were generally OK with it because of the assumption that "well they won't bother doing it to a random guy like me", which was true, back when it required actual footwork, and even pulling up someone's file was a physical task
Assuming one does accept targeted surveillance in extreme cases, then I'm not sure how to solve this apart from the frustratingly "stupid" and probably unenforceable solution of requiring the police and intelligence agencies to be stuck on 90s tech. Theoretical legal sanctions against doing this appear to have no teeth, the only way to discourage surveillance abuse is to make each instance have a non-circumventable operational cost
So to use a concrete example: I actually like private CCTV in public spaces. I do feel safer knowing the police can use that footage if I'm a victim of crime. But I only accept it because most systems are just writing to a local device, meaning there's a cost to the police asking for it. Any scheme to automate access to these records over the internet, no matter how well-meaning and theoretically legally restricted they are, would inevitably be used to make those scenes from The Bourne Ultimatum seem quaint
- they needs a judge order and because the previous point you can counter sue if reasonable, at least theoretically
- they can't impersonate you all around the globe including in countries outside of the UK just by raiding you
- a raid is time wise also limited
- police being able to raid doesn't prevent you from guarding yourself against random criminals or agents of foreign hostile governments raiding you
- you know when you are raided
- you are still allowed to put steal doors in your home
- I probably missed a bunch of points
I.e. it's not the same, not at all.
A more correct comparison would to state police can raid you, so they should be able to hack your device but only to retrieve information and being required to leaf a message behind (and even that comparison has issues).
Dunno how I feel about that metaphor. To me the current situation isn't just saying "police have the power to kick in doors". It's more like "citizens are banned from building houses with doors that make it hard for police to enter".
didntcheck|2 years ago
I think this is the big change people miss when it comes to police powers in the digital age. There's not been really been a culture shift from the police nor the citizens about police powers, just a increase in quantity of ability that has turned into a difference in quality. For decades agents of the state have had the theoretical ability to surveil people, and the people were generally OK with it because of the assumption that "well they won't bother doing it to a random guy like me", which was true, back when it required actual footwork, and even pulling up someone's file was a physical task
Assuming one does accept targeted surveillance in extreme cases, then I'm not sure how to solve this apart from the frustratingly "stupid" and probably unenforceable solution of requiring the police and intelligence agencies to be stuck on 90s tech. Theoretical legal sanctions against doing this appear to have no teeth, the only way to discourage surveillance abuse is to make each instance have a non-circumventable operational cost
So to use a concrete example: I actually like private CCTV in public spaces. I do feel safer knowing the police can use that footage if I'm a victim of crime. But I only accept it because most systems are just writing to a local device, meaning there's a cost to the police asking for it. Any scheme to automate access to these records over the internet, no matter how well-meaning and theoretically legally restricted they are, would inevitably be used to make those scenes from The Bourne Ultimatum seem quaint
dathinab|2 years ago
- they still have to be physically there
- one team can do only one raid at a time
- people know if they did a raid
- they needs a judge order and because the previous point you can counter sue if reasonable, at least theoretically
- they can't impersonate you all around the globe including in countries outside of the UK just by raiding you
- a raid is time wise also limited
- police being able to raid doesn't prevent you from guarding yourself against random criminals or agents of foreign hostile governments raiding you
- you know when you are raided
- you are still allowed to put steal doors in your home
- I probably missed a bunch of points
I.e. it's not the same, not at all.
A more correct comparison would to state police can raid you, so they should be able to hack your device but only to retrieve information and being required to leaf a message behind (and even that comparison has issues).
Rebelgecko|2 years ago
Spivak|2 years ago