On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Steven Morrey <sdalemor...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unless you've been living under a rock for the last few days you've > probably heard about this. > http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=15279689 > > I think it's important that we as an informed populace spread the word > that the answer here is not to encrypt the connection. The proper > answer is that our lawmakers need to raise the level of proof required > to obtain and execute a search warrant from IP address to something > more damning. An IP address IMHO shouldn't even be considered a > preponderance of the evidence, since IP addys are meant to be fluid > and changeable, thats one of the principals behind DHCP.
Just to spur some more argument, i'm going to be a devil's advocate. I don't honestly agree with this, but it should at least be considered. The SWAT team was completely necessary. In order to obtain the physical evidence that is required to convict a person, it must be collected fast. If the suspect was alerted to suspicions before a SWAT team could collect evidence, then the suspect could easily destroy all the evidence necessary. Therefore the perpetrator could get away. Better to inconvenience an innocent person, than to let a guilty person free. The risk of infringing on a suspects rights, by using a SWAT team, is necessary in order to keep the safety. --lonnie /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
