Same argument as with gun control.If you give law enforcement the ability to decrypt our stuff then I assure you there exists a corruptible law enforcement person who will sell this to criminals (or be blackmailed into it) and then we're right back to where we started.
People who sign up for FB & Google are agreeing to the Terms & Conditions, they are willingly providing personal data to get services for free, people doting want to share personal data can keep away from these services and stop buying Android phones, there are options.Meanwhile Facebook gets unlimited access to your phone... with an army of other apps collecting data.
Yeah you can **** right off with that ******** Wray.
You either abide by this or not at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Encryption backdoor is an unreasonable search because they can do it whenever they want it. If there is a case get a search warrant. Simple. Do you want some dumb **** to collect your dick picks?I’m not sure why I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here because I always tend to fall on the side of privacy, but the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. I can see the concern of law enforcement needing access to something held by an uncooperative witness or target. With a warrant they can already see your mail and listen to your phone conversations and audit your bank transactions. But, since I cannot think of a way into iThings that isn’t a back door or a secret key, which can be easily stolen and abused, I’m still for the supremacy of privacy.
Next step is regulating thoughts of the human mind; we can't have these apes thinking whatever thought just happens across their neurons!
I would argue that your interpretation of 4th amendment is incorrect. A proper interpretation would be that I am allowed to have encryption because some searches would be by definition unreasonable.I’m not sure why I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here because I always tend to fall on the side of privacy, but the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. I can see the concern of law enforcement needing access to something held by an uncooperative witness or target. With a warrant they can already see your mail and listen to your phone conversations and audit your bank transactions. But, since I cannot think of a way into iThings that isn’t a back door or a secret key, which can be easily stolen and abused, I’m still for the supremacy of privacy.
Just waiting for the FBI to say they have the need and right to scan my brain to get my private internal thoughts. [Guess what I am thinking now. See? You didn't need to weaken encryption.]
The idea that privacy is dangerous is lunacy, and there are other ways of collecting information than cracking encryption or using backdoors. Weakening encryption just allows governments to collect information indiscriminately on an industrial scale. I use the word 'governments', plural, advisedly. Anything the US government can crack other governments can crack as well.