That means if the FBI wants me decrypt any of my documents they can show my lawyer a search warrant otherwise they can FUCK OFF.
Even with a warrant, it has never been the case that a person could be compelled to translate the content of a document (a journal, for example) written in a private code. If you possess some form of codebook then they can force you to produce it with a subpoena, but that's pretty much as far as it goes.
A search warrant means they get to search your property, with or without your permission. You have no obligation to help them find what they're looking for, much less help them make sense of it once it's been found.
In any case this is less about individual warrants and more about preventing the manufacturers of popular electronics and software from making truly secure storage of personal data easy and ubiquitous. Encryption by default represents significant security benefits for the population at large, whereas its absence will have little or no impact on actual criminals beyond a bit of inconvenience. I can only conclude that the FBI is, perhaps unwittingly, taking the criminal's side on this issue—criminals stand to benefit more than anyone else from insecure systems.
The best possible permutation is where criminals are in total darkness, while the most incorruptible members of law enforcement, after obtaining a legitimate warrant, are in a brightly-lit room.
Even assuming you could find such a paragon of virtue to trust with everyone's secrets, which I highly doubt—and which is not your call to make—this has been tried. Many times. It simply does not work. If there is a back door into everyone's encrypted data, it will be available not only to these impractically idealized members of law enforcement for the objectively reasonable and impartial enforcement of universally agreed-upon laws, but also to criminals and others with less noble intentions. It's much the same problem as a large conspiracy: the more people that have access, the easier it for the back door to fall into the "wrong" hands; and a back door you can never use for reasons of security might as well not exist. It will get used, frequently, and it will leak, and when it does it will put everyone's private data in jeopardy. (Except for the real criminals, of course, who took care to speak in their own private code and/or encrypt all their data with an unbreakable and trivial-to-implement one-time pad—which won't be discovered until after the warrant has been issued to decrypt the files with the government's master key.)
Most of those 1,125 were perps.
Your 35K number is pure fiction.
But I think it's important to admit that there is a real subject of debate here.
No. There isn't.
Problem is that encryption is more than just sending messages to your co-conspirators. There's banking. Paying bills. All that other good stuff that we do without thinking about the encryption. Back door on encryption means that that's all gone. Can't afford to do online banking with broken encryption. Can't afford a lot of the conveniences of modern living (haven't had to actually write a check in years. And don't expect to have to again)....
Well, it depends upon what the meaning of "is", is.
Intent is purely subjective and subject to the whims of whomever is currently interpreting the law. The letter of the law is much more concrete and harder to get around unless you want to actually redefine the meaning of words. The letter of the law is the guiding principle; if it was intent then you have kangaroo courts and decisions made based upon the current direction the wind is blowing.
Check out where we spend. Social insurance (Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, Social Security) costs and interest on the debt are 69% of all spending - which consumes 100% of Federal revenues. Everything else - defense, transportation, education, etc. - is paid for with borrowed money, and is just 31% of all spending. It's not defense spending - it's ALL spending, and you cannot solve it without cutting social insurance costs.
By the way, we've already passed $1.33 trillion in deficit spending this year, we'll probably hit $1.4 trillion. That's more than that 31% in total - meaning we're at the point where we can't even cover our social insurance and interest costs with tax revenues.
If that's the best you've got, then you've got nothing.
The Feds got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They instigated all of this. They have no standing to whine about it.
Part of being "grown up" is owning your mistakes.
The political stuff is the worst. Every wingnut in your feed wants to spread their particular gospel. It's even worse than the blatantly religious stuff. The problem is probably what some people consider "news". Plus you've got idiots that start foaming at the mouth because they stumble onto something that feeds into their favorite narrative. It doesn't occur to them that it's an obvious satire site. It's sad, hilarious, and annoying all at once.
All memes are bullshit.
Someone may have a valid observation but they quickly run off the rails and jump the shark with extreme and absurd sh*t.
I could understand how a telepath might go nuts and would just want it all to shut off.
Office doesn't annotate well enough for law. Given the context nature of the problem, I would be shocked if SharePoint does either. There are special purpose tools for this (in the legal field).
I really have my doubts about the SharePoint groupie.
What? A disconnect between IT and the users.
That's what the two Bobs get for firing the requirements guy.
Of course in the old days, the SMEs just bit the bullet and changed the world anyways.
Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?