Signal Interception

[Goatboy]

There's a great analogy made by Cory Doctorow about the encryption thing - I'm talking about the toilet one.

Yes, everyone shits, but that doesn't mean everyone would feel comfortable having you watch them.

I like this. A lot.

[insomaniacal]

Same.

It really takes an issue that could be otherwise difficult to argue and puts it in simple, concise, and bold words.

[Kage]

One argument that the government could make is that if you have nothing to hide, why encrypt it?

I hate this argument so much. They use this, as well as "People complaining about us monitoring them obviously have something to hide!" Yeah, so if I'm being tortured and complain, then I obviously deserve the torture, if that logic is true.

[insomaniacal]

The problem is that the average person doesn't give a fuck, and doesn't really see a point in giving a fuck, if you take the time to explain why they should.

I swear, Little Brother is going to become synonymous with our world before a sizeable chunk of the population decides enough is enough. I understand it may be necessary to monitor certain people, certain data, and certain networks, but declaring electronic-warfare on your population is not the way to go about it.

[fashizzlepop]

One argument that the government could make is that if you have nothing to hide, why encrypt it?

<br>I hate this argument so much. They use this, as well as "People complaining about us monitoring them obviously have something to hide!" Yeah, so if I'm being tortured and complain, then I obviously deserve the torture, if that logic is true.

That's why you never say "Yes" when they ask you to search your car, EVEN if you have nothing to hide. That argument's logical fallacy is used often in many different circumstances.

[insomaniacal]

That's why you never say "Yes" when they ask you to search your car, EVEN if you have nothing to hide. That argument's logical fallacy is used often in many different circumstances.

The really messed up thing is that an officer can use that as a precedent for searching your car. All he has to say is you looked suspicious and refused to allow him to search your vehicle. He'll be in no trouble, and your rights will still be violated.

I suppose its a good thing to do as a matter of principle though.

[hellow533]

GL with all your international communications getting intercepted. Probably so terrorists can't do that terrorist thing that terrorists do. Like terrorizing, for example.

Thank you for repeating what the government and the media always say. You learned your lesson very well.

Thought it was sarcastic. I hope it was.

Yeah that's sarcasm.

[fashizzlepop]

That's why you never say "Yes" when they ask you to search your car, EVEN if you have nothing to hide. That argument's logical fallacy is used often in many different circumstances.

The really messed up thing is that an officer can use that as a precedent for searching your car. All he has to say is you looked suspicious and refused to allow him to search your vehicle. He'll be in no trouble, and your rights will still be violated.

I suppose its a good thing to do as a matter of principle though.

I'm pretty sure just looking suspicious isn't enough stance in court. They need reasonable suspicion. Schools can do that, but not the police. Also, if everyone refuses those searches then it wouldn't be too weird and you wouldn't be the only one who does.

[Kage]

The really messed up thing is that an officer can use that as a precedent for searching your car. All he has to say is you looked suspicious and refused to allow him to search your vehicle. He'll be in no trouble, and your rights will still be violated.

I suppose its a good thing to do as a matter of principle though.

I'm pretty sure just looking suspicious isn't enough stance in court. They need reasonable suspicion. Schools can do that, but not the police. Also, if everyone refuses those searches then it wouldn't be too weird and you wouldn't be the only one who does.

Fashizzle is correct. Police cannot search your car if you say no, suspecting some "suspicious probable cause." They need a truly substantial reason to do so even if you say no. Granted, yes, they can make up some bullshit, but there are numerous court cases that have occurred (and been won) due to people feeling their civil rights were violated. Due to fear of lawsuit, police restrict searches only to the most necessary reasons. Do corrupt searches still occur? Absolutely. But citing "he looked suspicious when he said no" is an ACLU wet-dream.

[Goatboy]

There are actually times when a cop can both stop and search you for virtually no reason. I forget the exact term, but a common scenario is as follows:

A guy is in a bad neighborhood. He's standing outside a gas station alone. He has a somewhat thick coat on for the middle of July, and he has been there for a while. The cop decides that, under the circumstances, the guy is probably up to no good, and he decides to stop and search him.

I wish I could recall the term from my constitutional law class, but this stuck out in my mind regardless. It could be argued that the cop had probable cause, but the scenario, not the person, is what is suspicious in these cases.