Read the article. Title is clickbait. It’s only with approval from a judge. You know, alternatively they could just arrest and imprison the person, which is what every country is doing. Not saying it’s without worrying, but there’s important nuance that most are missing.
P.S.
Absolute extremist attitudes like “nobody should be able” and so on, have absolutely no place in modern society. There’s always nuance. Libertarianism doesn’t work, and laws must be enforced. It sucks, but when there are forces that want to hurt people and destabilize societies, you can’t go by the rule that everyone is a saint. The world will punish this attitude.
Yes, the world isn’t perfect, but for ducks sake, quit sensationalizing anecdotes and representing them as “this always happens”. That’s dishonest.
So? Even with a warrant, thats not a power that people should have. No one, warrant or not, should be able to remotely activate your phone/camera/etc and monitor it. The fact that power exists means smart phones are an even bigger personal safety and privacy threat than they already were… and if police can do it with a warrant, then there are gonna be people who figure out how to do it without one and for far more malicious reasons.
If you are, what do you have against warrants? If someone kidnapped your friend and kept them locked away in their house. Don’t you want there to be a way for the police to legally rescue your friend if they have evidence on where they are being held?
I don’t think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone’s property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.
Keep in mind that privacy is really a recent concept. Human societies never had privacy before the industrial revolution. Everybody knew everybody else and what they were doing. I do want my privacy, but modern technology makes it too easy to create and grow any organization that can rival the state in power. While we do have the power to influence and control the state, we have no power over competing organizations that act like authoritarian states.
There needs to be a balance, an amount of power that the state can exercise, that’s just right for keeping it as a monopoly on violence. Absolute privacy, where the state has transparency, is taking away all the power and advantages from the state and gives them to whoever wants to challenge that state.
Read the article. Title is clickbait. It’s only with approval from a judge. You know, alternatively they could just arrest and imprison the person, which is what every country is doing. Not saying it’s without worrying, but there’s important nuance that most are missing.
P.S.
Absolute extremist attitudes like “nobody should be able” and so on, have absolutely no place in modern society. There’s always nuance. Libertarianism doesn’t work, and laws must be enforced. It sucks, but when there are forces that want to hurt people and destabilize societies, you can’t go by the rule that everyone is a saint. The world will punish this attitude.
Yes, the world isn’t perfect, but for ducks sake, quit sensationalizing anecdotes and representing them as “this always happens”. That’s dishonest.
So? Even with a warrant, thats not a power that people should have. No one, warrant or not, should be able to remotely activate your phone/camera/etc and monitor it. The fact that power exists means smart phones are an even bigger personal safety and privacy threat than they already were… and if police can do it with a warrant, then there are gonna be people who figure out how to do it without one and for far more malicious reasons.
Ah yes it’s ok to violate my rights, as long as a judge approves it.
Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not.
If you are, what do you have against warrants? If someone kidnapped your friend and kept them locked away in their house. Don’t you want there to be a way for the police to legally rescue your friend if they have evidence on where they are being held?
because warrant or not, no one should have the power to remotely turn on your camera/mic/etc without your knowledge and monitor it.
we have that same nuance here in the united states and it’s be shown that the judge’s approval is nothing more than a rubber stamp.
I don’t think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone’s property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.
If the good guys can do it, even by the books, imagine what the bad guys can do.
Laws must be enforced, but not by treating privacy like a wet rag.
Persinally I hope we’ll see some mainstream devices that comes with a hardware toggle for the mic and a manual privacy shutter for the cameras.
Keep in mind that privacy is really a recent concept. Human societies never had privacy before the industrial revolution. Everybody knew everybody else and what they were doing. I do want my privacy, but modern technology makes it too easy to create and grow any organization that can rival the state in power. While we do have the power to influence and control the state, we have no power over competing organizations that act like authoritarian states.
There needs to be a balance, an amount of power that the state can exercise, that’s just right for keeping it as a monopoly on violence. Absolute privacy, where the state has transparency, is taking away all the power and advantages from the state and gives them to whoever wants to challenge that state.
In other words, nuance.
Uh huh, and if a rubber stamp judge gives wiretapping permission every time the cops ask for it?
Then your problem is the judicial system, isn’t it?
I’m sure the judge will say no
Can we ban clickbait