Should there be a constitutional right to strong encryption

[Blahface]

Yes there should.

We should also have a new constitution for the modern era that leaves a lot less room for interpretation and politicization of the judiciary.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But what would the courts say okay Enron "You changed all your profit hiding emails and then just decided to randomly write numbers on the screen and say that was the email" Could Enron get away with that?

And then comes the foil of every court everywhere, that pesky but about needing to prove that you did it before punishing you.

I disagree...but we will see what happens in court cases over time. There is a difference about having a right to privacy and also not complying a judicial investigation. Wouldn't matter whether its a legal document you should have or the encrypted laptop. If you are compelled to hand over the legal documents in the investigation.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes there should.

We should also have a new constitution for the modern era that leaves a lot less room for interpretation and politicization of the judiciary.

In which way. People should have the right to encrypt their messages and not have it spied upon by any government. Though we get more of an issue with the government gets a subpena and warrant to get information from you.

 

[Jarhyn]

And then comes the foil of every court everywhere, that pesky but about needing to prove that you did it before punishing you.

I disagree...but we will see what happens in court cases over time. There is a difference about having a right to privacy and also not complying a judicial investigation. Wouldn't matter whether its a legal document you should have or the encrypted laptop. If you are compelled to hand over the legal documents in the investigation.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes there should.

We should also have a new constitution for the modern era that leaves a lot less room for interpretation and politicization of the judiciary.

In which way. People should have the right to encrypt their messages and not have it spied upon by any government. Though we get more of an issue with the government gets a subpena and warrant to get information from you.

Except with the laptop it's requesting a document that doesn't currently exist, and a context that exists only in the mind of the accused. It's no different from demanding the source code for a program, when half of the source only exists as memorized byte code in the memory of the programmer. The full source doesn't exist except through the revelation of incriminating information by the accused.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Given the example of the second amendment to your constitution, it seems unwise to enshrine in that constitution any rights whose scope or impact is likely to be massively altered by future changes in technology.

You mean we should be concerned that, just as an amendment that was meant to guarantee the right to a single-shot musket that took 30 seconds to reload has screwed us all over by morphing with the unforeseen advance of the gunsmith's art into a guarantee of the right to a semi-automatic assault rifle, likewise, if we guarantee ourselves the right to use an unbreakable cipher, this will similarly hurt our descendants by morphing into a guarantee that citizens of the future will have the right to use a super-duper extra-special unbreakable cipher?

And freedom of speech meant speaking in the town square, and doesn't apply to postings on the internet or telephone conversations. And freedom of the press only applies to newspapers, and doesn't apply to radio or television. And the fourth amendment can't apply to data, only to persons, houses, papers, and effects, so of course nobody has a right to encryption. Of course the seventh amendment insists that all cases, even simple traffic tickets, must be jury trials since the typical traffic fine is over $20.