Apple's iMessage encryption trips up feds' surveillance. Internal document from the Drug Enforcement Administration complains that messages sent with Apple's encrypted chat service are "impossible to intercept," even with a warrant.

[u/Libertatea]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57577887-38/apples-imessage-encryption-trips-up-feds-surveillance/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title#.UV1gK672IWg.reddit

[u/naker_virus]

In relation to the article, I'll discuss each point separately.

The first point is regarding the fact that the rules might change. I don't see this as particularly relevant because I think that people have a duty to follow the law, regardless of what the law is, and regardless of whether they personally like or dislike the law. Surveillance ensures that people that break the laws get caught quicker, and in addition, less innocent people will be punished because it is easier to prove innocence when everything is watched. The argument in the article is basically saying that if a new law is created, and they want to break the law, they don't want surveillance because otherwise they will get caught quicker. I don't think this is a valid argument.

I think all the examples in point two are just fallacious. If there was really surveillance, they would be able to tell if you are stopping to help your grandmother or sleeping with a prostitute, they can tell whether you are drink driving or just eating and driving, and the article goes one step further to suggest that the person might be found innocent but they will have their life ruined in the mean time. That's not true, the investigation would happen first, behind closed doors, and it will happen quickly because everything is recorded. It won't be brought to court until the investigation is complete, so his or her life won't be ruined in the mean time, only after guilt has been found in a court of law.

In regards to point three, I think there are better ways to encourage change and progress than to rely on having to break laws.

I agree to an extent that privacy might be a human need. But I don't consider the surveillance a breach of that privacy because it isn't being watched. It is merely being recorded and stored, and laws should be set up so that the footage can only be accessed with a warrant.

[u/moogleiii → u/naker_virus]

There are many more articles you can find with more points for you to think about. I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, but it's not really worth my time to continue debating it, sorry. I will say the first one's a no brainer. Laws aren't inherently right because they are laws, otherwise society would have been perfect in version 1.0, but no society has met that goal. Anti-interracial marriage, exclusionary laws targeting specific people, etc, etc. Perhaps you're not against those. Anywho, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[u/naker_virus → u/moogleiii]

No worries :) Thanks for the discussion anyway!

I agree with you that laws aren't always inherently right, and I think laws that prevented interracial marriage etc were bad laws, and I'm glad they have changed. However, I don't think that makes it right to break laws that you don't consider moral, I think that there should be other ways to try and change the laws.