Hi Christian, On 3/28/15 12:22 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > > The author's point is that the state, with proper warrants, should be > able to conduct searches for evidence of crimes.
Yes. > While this is a reasonable argument, it does not follow that people > should not have the right to protect their communications. Yes. > For example, there is no mandate anywhere that people should keep a > copy of their private letters in some kind of archive, so that they > could later be found when the police asks for it. But if they *did* keep a copy they could be compelled to reveal it if the state had probable cause or a warrant. The technology to actually retain copies was beyond the horizon of the framers. > And there is definitely no expectation that all our private > communications should be copied and archived by the state. Unless the state has a warrant or probable cause. > And I am pretty sure that there was no such expectation among the > authors of the US constitution and Bill of Rights. We'll never know, but they left a very strong hint in the 4th amendment that they would indeed seek an appropriate balance of rights, as the Massachusetts Compromise shows the Bill of Rights was hotly debated between federalists and anti-federalists. When we get beyond the United States, of course, different societies have different views about All Of This. Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
