[pedalpete]

Controversial question here.

When someone is arrested, the police can get a subpoena to enter your house, right?

There they can collect evidence regarding the case.

Digital protections should exist, but should they exist beyond what is available in the physical world? If so, why?

I think the wording of this is far too lenient and I understand the controversy of "if asked" vs "valid legal order", neither of which strictly say "subpoena", and of course, the controversy of how laws are interpreted/ignored in one country in particularly (yes, I'm looking at you USA).

Should there be a middle ground? Or should we always consider anything that is digital off-limits?

[danans]

> When someone is arrested, the police can get a subpoena to enter your house, right?

That's a warrant. A subpoena is an order to appear in court.

[amelius]

And by the way ICE officers can still enter your house even if they don't have a warrant. Apparently.

[_jab]

Completely agree.

Crazier question: what’s wrong with a well-intentioned surveillance state? Preventing crime is a noble goal, and sometimes I just don’t think some vague notion of privacy is more important than that.

I sometimes feel that the tech community would find the above opinion far more outlandish than the general population would.

[B1FIDO]

> what’s wrong with a well-intentioned surveillance state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_of_Desire

tl;dw: A well-intentioned surveillance state may, in fact, love the beings they are surveilling. They may fall in love so deeply, that they want to become like us. I know it's a revolutionary concept.

[gopher_space]

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the panopticon. Your society is what makes it good or evil.