&gt; but police can break down your door and seize your financial and medical records if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you.<p>But this isn&#x27;t the <i>police&#x27;s</i> right, it&#x27;s <i>our</i> right(s) that we&#x27;re voluntarily ceding to the government such that it can practically provide us our basic security.<p>&gt; Why should your smartphone be different?<p>Because it <i>is</i> different. I can&#x27;t backup a car, or encrypt one, etc. Traditional possessions didn&#x27;t record your GPS location and didn&#x27;t contain all your private and banking info and couldn&#x27;t be turned into remote listening devices and so forth.<p>So far we&#x27;re seeing traditional law enforcement having a pretty good record against even high-tech criminals. They caught DPR with legwork and correlating multiple tails to figure out who was who. Even though he took <i>extreme</i> measures most of the time a few mistakes took him down.<p>So, with the thought in mind that nobody fights harder than for their budget, we should have discussions with our security forces and reevaluate our needs; see just how much of the physical world&#x27;s laws usefully translate and what needs to be revamped. Evaluate what we can reasonably hope to achieve at what cost.<p>The laws don&#x27;t own us, we own them. The discussion needs to be &quot;What should the laws say?&quot;.