Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
See, you're trying to play the same appeal to emotion "but terrorists!" card the government is. History has demonstrated that the trillions of dollars the US has spent on anti-terrorism has had very little real impact.
|
Lol what? You have no way of demonstrating any of this and you've completely missed the point - forget terrorism, there is a constant tension between liberty and security. We are obviously willing to give up some liberty for security as a society. The question is how much, and in what circumstances, and the question right now is whether one of the circumstances is this.
In other words, are we okay with giving up a
bit of security - i.e. my iPhone is now 99% secure instead of 100% secure - so that law enforcement can fully investigate crimes. Again, not just terrorism; if someone is murdered, and they're found dead in an alley with their iPhone in their jacket pocket, and you know they were sending texts right up until their time of death, do you not want the police to be able to read those? People have taken VIDEO of their attackers on their phones.
I'm not sure I have an easy answer here, but yours doesn't really satisfy in my opinion. I'm pretty sure where I come down is that this would be a reasonable subject for legislative regulation rather than court intervention.
Quote:
So lets take your hypothetical and mimic this situation. Someone who shot up an office party, and is now dead, has an impenetrable room in their house.
Ok, so what?
The crime is done, the perp is dead, there's nothing more to be done. Whatever is in the room isn't a threat, due to the very nature of the room itself. So now you're just going on a fishing expedition for no reason other than to prove you have power and control.
|
You can't possibly believe this. As noted, the interest isn't in undoing the crime, it's determining if this person had any help, finding out what happened to prevent it in the future.
Seriously the logic here is just loopy - what necessarily follows from your reasoning, no exaggeration, is that there's no point in investigating crimes
at all where the perpetrator dies committing them. I don't think you'll get many takers there.