Maybe I'm missing something here but it seems to me there is a basic question here. Do two or more people have a right to privately communicate via a third party?
If the answer is yes, then regardless of the accuracy of the system or the mass nature of the communication network this is objectionable law making.
IMO, it is a fundamental human right to communicate privately.
The only real question is what is the responsibility of a third party. If I give a shipper illicit material are they responsible to inspect it and report it? I'm personally unaware of the law regarding this but I assume your shipper is not required by law to open every package it ships and report upon it. Are they required to do a percentage?
If not than what the state is claiming here is a right by convenience. It happens that digital communication is easier to inspect than crates. Therefore, the state can create an expectation of one third party it does not of another.
If the answer is yes, then regardless of the accuracy of the system or the mass nature of the communication network this is objectionable law making.
IMO, it is a fundamental human right to communicate privately.
The only real question is what is the responsibility of a third party. If I give a shipper illicit material are they responsible to inspect it and report it? I'm personally unaware of the law regarding this but I assume your shipper is not required by law to open every package it ships and report upon it. Are they required to do a percentage?
If not than what the state is claiming here is a right by convenience. It happens that digital communication is easier to inspect than crates. Therefore, the state can create an expectation of one third party it does not of another.