> but virtually all forms of evidence that document a crime are encrypted
These are good points, though I'm wondering if the burden of proof has just increased? E.g. in the past there was little permanent evidence, so do we really need to break encryption to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
It's like lack of DNA evidence making cases seem "unprovable", but then what did we do before DNA was available?
These are good points, though I'm wondering if the burden of proof has just increased? E.g. in the past there was little permanent evidence, so do we really need to break encryption to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
It's like lack of DNA evidence making cases seem "unprovable", but then what did we do before DNA was available?