&lt;&lt;Actually it is not what we&#x27;re talking about, because they&#x27;re not blind, they can use usual means of inquiry, and the technology. How comes already there are no firearm firing sound detectors, or remote-controlled drones with tasers in major streets to react instantly, ect...? There are ways to act which don&#x27;t strip citizens from their power, as information nowadays is power.&gt;&gt;<p>That&#x27;s actually exactly what we are talking about. The police&#x27;s job is to enforce the law, and as technology changes, they need to adapt, the same way firearms now have serial numbers, and they collect DNA samples &#x2F; fingerprints (all of which have met similar resistance before they became a broadly adopted technology, and are also open to abuse).<p>It&#x27;s totally fine to have a rational discussion of where, as a society, we want to draw a line, but let&#x27;s please keep our own rhetoric in check - there are lots of scenarios (outside the high visibility of this case) where, with proper legal controls, enabling the police to be able to access someone&#x27;s phone is the equivalent of a traditional search order that allows the police to enter someone&#x27;s premises and search for evidence.