Nope. I'm saying that the agencies that do have the ability to crack that kind of encryption will not invest the time and resources and talent required to do it for trivial reasons. And yes, those same agencies do indeed consider things like drug lords and money laundering trivial. They operate on a completely different level and will not waste their time on small potatoes.
And another thing, which I was thinking about so I'll just put it here...
I hate the old "well, of you have nothing to hide..." argument. It is the rallying cry for busybodies who can make no logical case but still desire to muck about in other peoples' business. And, sure as the sunrise, the next phrase is "it just makes you look suspicious..."
Just because people have a desire to not share every detail about their lives does not make them criminals. Or even suspicious, for that matter. To think otherwise is to walk on very shaky philosophical ground.
Also, we're starting to drive this particular thread a bit off the rails...
One last rebuttal, then I stand down =
First..What you dislike is of no concern to me. Investigators are there to do a job. It can be easy..or it can be hard. Cooperate and get it over with..or be pain in the buttocks and drag it out.
If you commit a crime, or have been believed to have committed a crime , yes..YOU will be investigated, and it is Law Enforcements job to be snoopy. They can get a warrant, go to your bank and get your financial records, they can get your credit card statements, and your cell phone bill ; just to name a few things they have access to - - >All without you knowing or finding out..Till discovery time when the prosecutor shares his evidence with YOUR attorney. The first thing an attorney is going to do, is try to discredit everything. Statements, evidence..ect. When they can't do that..they ask the prosecutor for a plea bargain..which will not happen after the work has been put into the case, the jury has been seated, adn time has been spent.
I belive that " mucking in other peoples business " , by getting the contents off of a computer, will be the least of his worries.
You hate the " Ole well you have nothing to hide ". You are involved in a traffic stop , a cop asks to search your car and look in the trunk. He asks you to sign the paperwork that you are letting him look in the trunk. You reply " No...get a warrant , I don't want you mucking in my business." Most states..even you don't submit to a breathlizer..cause you don't want polcie mucking in your business...will get you an automatic drivers license revocation. oops. A big price to pay for " Mucky ".
Encrypted files. Finanical - personal business - and other reasons. Just because you can is not a * good * reason, although you can.
Cases can be researched and found where "Encrypted' files have been broken and the files found / read - even recently. When an individual starts thinking that they are smarter and more intelligent than the next guy, that is when it will bite them in the butt.
And yes, trivial reasons will cause an agency to crack a computer encryption, if it means putting the bad guy in jail...and most definately if information can be gathered off the computer to present the case to a Grand Jury. Small potatos lead to bigger potatos..which leads to felony convictions as well as asset seizure - therefore making it a worthwhile investigaion by everyone involved..as well as time spent in court. And the L/E agency gets the forfeited assets such as vehicles , real estate, boats..ect. Plus..Plus , media attention lets it out that there is the capability, don't " Muck Around " in this jurisdiction ; If so, you will go to prison.
" Busy bodies " help protect us. Property - lives - children - workplaces. Terrorism has written a new law in reference to the 4th amendment. And the idiot Mark Furman ( LAPD - OJ Simpson Case ) whom invoked his 5th amendment ( Protect himself from self-incrimination ) right..He had nothing to hide. Why Marsha did not O.J just walk out of the courtroom after he made that statement is beyond me. I belive that Officer Furman sealed O.J's fate of letting him free for his 5th Amendment Statement. And yet Mark had nothing to hide.
Nothing wrong with divulging information, as long as you divulge it to the right individula(s) for only the correct circumstances. I don't believe the police will take an ad out in the local paper and discuss / publish details sensitive or personal in nature. They are inquiring / investigation / asking questions in the performance of their job.That is what court is for, and why we have judges whom protect the integrity of the court, and enforce, as well as intepret laws the best way they know how.
And there is nothing " philosophical " about a crime. It happened, or it did not..Philosophy has nothing to do with it.
You can dress improperly, peculiar for a specific location.. and be suspicious, or gain an attentive persons curiosity / eye / suspicion. Quite a few things in life you can do and be suspicious and be questioned ; BUT that does not mean you have to answer Joe public citizens questions. Someone with authority and or responsibility..YES ; I believe you have to answer reasonable questions , and the person of authority / responsibilty not only has a right but a duty to inquire..again , reasonably.
One thing about me..I love children. You would belive that if it was a crime involving a child..One would be as cooperative as possible. If not, someone might be, taking away your chanve to cooperate..therefore making matters worse.
- - - - - - - Back to my tent and campfire - - - - - - - --
FF - Medic !!!
