
What I Learned About Tech Privacy from Jury Duty - petethomas
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-15/what-i-learned-about-tech-privacy-from-jury-duty
======
flocial
"Sitting on the jury, I felt willing to give up a little more of my personal
privacy to make sure my fellow citizens are safe. Where to draw that line,
though, is decidedly not black and white."

I suppose this is the exact kind of sentiment lawmakers and law enforcement
want to tap into to justify their encroachment on civil rights. What scares me
is the access to this personal information combined with the growing judicial
mess of regulations, vague/irrational laws, and high legal costs.

Makes me grateful for the EFF and people like RMS who continue to fight the
good fight against the world.

------
ramblerouser
It pleases me that 4/5 hacker news comments here call out this manipulative
establishment propaganda for what it is.

"We need to keep talking about how secure the technology is, _how secure we
want it to be_ , and how tech and telecommunications _companies decide when to
hand over our personal information._ A small number of powerful companies make
regular choices about when law enforcement has legitimate demands for personal
information and when they may be overreaching."

Translation: the "intelligence community" is mad that apple doesnt rubber
stamp their data requests and actually makes them go to court for a warrent
sometimes and so they want backdoors in everything.

------
gammateam
As the ACLU mentions in this article, there is more than one way to gather
evidence and corroborate information than relying on sweeping up digital
breadcrumbs, its not reliant on this false dichotomy of a debate regarding a
[potential] defendant's privacy.

~~~
gralx
One way that I like is called _having the key to one's own freedom:_ if
someone refuses to decrypt data under court order, they go to jail for
contempt and stay there until they relent.

~~~
gammateam
there needs to be an avenue to challenge that as well though, a high burden of
cause, and a venue to exercise or expect the constitutional right against self
incrimination.

------
Brian_K_White
This is the most utterly ignorant thing I have read all day, which is
remarkable if you knew some of the things I read on facebook.

I almost think it was crafted. Oh I'm sure someone was really on jury duty,
but that doesn't preclude crafting and opportunistic use of someone who was
really on jury duty.

I have to assume that unpacking and listing all the plot holes would just be
preaching to the choir here.

TL,DR: "I originally had one opinion based on no thought at all, just random
luck that I felt one way, vaguely, for no actual reason, as a result of no
substantial examination or consideration of the problem. Then one day a bunch
of important-looking Authority Figures forced me to hear their propaganda in a
controlled and impressive setting, and I totally bought it, because having no
thoughts of my own, I am effortlessly impressionable."

~~~
flocial
It reads like a sponsored piece from the DoJ.

"I took my courtroom musings to the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick, an expert on
digital privacy and a former criminal defense attorney. She said even if law
enforcement and prosecutors can’t access every morsel of digital information
when investigating a crime, there is often more than one way to compile the
same evidence or corroborating information."

Yet, why not give up our freedoms to make life easier for law enforcement.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
I was expecting much deeper digression into all the alternative evidence that
was mentioned, and how that should prove:

1\. Encryption isn't a silver bullet to protect someone from being found
guilty of crimes they committed

2\. All the angles from which other evidence can be gathered is highly likely
to close out any thoughts of reasonable doubt.

Relate it all to the case that was used as an example, then pose the question,
would you have any reasonable doubt that they were guilty?

Requiring the content of the accused's phone is akin to requiring their signed
confession before they can be found guilty.

The article's conclusion is a little offensive: _I felt willing to give up a
little more of my personal privacy to make sure my fellow citizens are safe.
Where to draw that line, though, is decidedly not black and white._

It IS black and white. You don't need to give up any personal privacy to make
your fellow citizens feel safe, that's how it's been for a long time...

I'd actually feel less safe knowing there's a government spectre hanging over
my digital life.

