> The woman in the couple declared it right before the shooting[0].

I'm not questioning that she declared allegiance. I'm asking if she was in private contact with anyone. If you were responding to that, can you show me where that is in the NYT article you linked? I don't see it.

> Do you want a notarized letter from the deceased?

Let's try to keep this civil, please.

> Do you really view this as a government overreach or are you just trolling?

I actually believe the things I am saying. I am not saying them to anger or upset you or anyone else. Please do not let the fact that we disagree about the scope of the 4th Amendment cause you emotional suffering.

I am not ready to declare it overreach, because I do not know all of the evidence yet. This is why I have been saying things like "Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?" and "did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group" and "I have not followed the news on this shooting, so I would not be shocked if the answer were 'yes, there is some evidence of a conspiracy'."

If there is no such evidence, I do think it is overreach, but my opinions on policy are not fixed in stone, and I sometimes change my mind about them when presented with new arguments, ideas, or philosophies.

> Under what circumstances, if any, would you see as justified a search of someone's email? phone? house?

I doubt anyone has a complete enumeration of all circumstances under which they feel a search is justified. I would feel torn if there was lousy circumstantial evidence that the phone would solve or prevent crimes, I would be in support of a warrant if there was strong evidence, and I am opposed to a warrant with no evidence. One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US.

I will no longer reading or responding to your edits that are "edited to reply". If you want to discuss with me further, please reply to reply by using the "reply" button. I will not be editing any of my posts to "edit to reply".

The legality of searching for evidence is pretty open and shut because you need probable cause. The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system.

Shooting a bunch of people and saying you're with ISIS is plenty of probable cause for a search. I don't see how you're waiting for "all the evidence" here since all the relevant facts are in and they're sufficient. Whether or not she was conversing privately with ISIS counterparts would be the resulting information of the search.

> One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US.

The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs, instead they need to say "I'm in ISIS and there are a bunch of us!" and then shoot a bunch of civilians.

Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.

If I did so, it was a mistake. My reference to the 4th Amendment, for instance, should have said "how the 4th Amendment ought to protect us". I did not mean to imply that I am trying to predict what warrants the justice system will or will not grant.

> You have a fringe understanding of it

I think I mentioned the 4th amendment just the once. I have been trying to stick to normative arguments.

> The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system.

I think this is a point where we truly disagree. I think a system can function in which some evidence that a search will yield results is required before the search is conducted. I do not think that the evidence must be airtight. Note that I am speaking about what I think is possible and just and right, not what the law says now or the justice system does now.

> The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs

Did the shooter say she was "in ISIS", or that she pledged allegiance to the leader? There might be a difference in this case. I have read that there is religious significance to a pledge of allegiance in ISIS's theology that might make a pledge indicative of ideological alignment and a membership "in ISIS" indicative of being in actual conversations with ISIS.

> Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.

Please, let's try to be civil.

Either one would seem to constitute probable cause for an association. Of course we don't know if she was actually in ISIS, or just agreed with their beliefs. But how would we know without conducting further investigation? You seem to be demanding a somewhat unreasonably large burden of proof, when all that is needed in this case is probable cause. Frankly, even if she hadn't verbally declared allegiance to ISIS, I don't think it's a stretch to say there's probable cause for connection to other terrorist groups. The fact that she did say that makes it a slam dunk.

> I think a system can function in which some evidence that a search will yield results is required before the search is conducted. I do not think that the evidence must be airtight.

We do have such a system. The evidence you're describing is called probable cause, and that's the whole point. I'm not sure of any reasonable definition of probable cause that this situation wouldn't satisfy. Moreover, your objections seem to be in the form of vague misgivings rather than concrete arguments. You haven't precisely described what would constitute sufficient evidence for an investigation, but instead seem to just be saying "there's not enough right now." I think this is what's behind GPs frustrations responding to your posts.

That kind of reasoning allows wholesale collection of communications data by the NSA and other agencies. Since that practice has been widely criticized, there must be something missing from your argument.

No one is advocating warrantless searches or not requiring reasons for warrants.

If I want to get a warrant to see who you're calling, it is inherently a broken system that requires the list of people that you called as cause to obtain that warrant.

Any kind of reasoning allows wholesale collection of communications if you misread it properly.

In that case, all you(pl.)'re haggling over is the "price point" of how much evidence is required to support how invasive a search. I'm unsure how that results in the kind of heated debate that seems to happen here.

Oh well...

It sounds like common sense, I guess, but has that ever worked, actually?

Similar "prevention" rationale is offered for governments to spy on virtually all telecom all the time, now. But this shooting happened anyway.

1) Anyone with a plan promised to stop all terrorist attacks is lying to you, stupid, or both. You can't have a free society and a 0% chance of political violence.

2) Yes, searching the possessions and communications of dead terrorists unsurprisingly are substantially more likely to lead to useful criminal leads than reading your metadata. A warrant to read this person's stuff isn't unreasonable in the slightest, an order forcing apple to do shit might be but that's a procedural thing unrelated to the core issue of "is there a good reason to read this person's stuff"

Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods?

> If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would?

Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos?

Is there some other issue we're missing here, or does that pretty much wrap it up?

You can feel free to disengage from this conversation if you find it troubling. If you are incredulous that someone might be concerned with the privacy of these people (and their friends and family) in the particular way I am, then I'm not sure what I can do to make you believe.

I am a person. These are my true thoughts. I actually and honestly believe them.

> Yes, the police will easily get warrants to search whatever property of a mass murderer's they feel would be productive to search.

As I said earlier to you in another branch of this discussion, I am not disagreeing that the police CAN get this warrant. They appear to HAVE gotten this warrant, so I guess that's a historical fact. I'm trying to have a discussion about what we think is just and fair and right, as well as trying to find out if there is any evidence of a conspiracy. I have not followed the news on this shooting, so I would not be shocked if the answer were "yes, there is some evidence of a conspiracy". This is why I asked the question, "Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?"

> No, that does not mean they can randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods.

I did not ask if police CAN randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods, I asked the commenter if he or she thought they ought to be able to do so. If the answer is "yes, they ought to", then we might have a different discussion than if the answer is "no, they should not". I have met people who would answer "yes" and I have met people who would answer "no". Neither answer will cause me to accuse the commenter of commenting in bad faith.

> Privacy rights for mass murderers: not a high priority of US constitutional law.

I'm not talking about what is and is not a high priority for the justice system. I'm trying to engage in a dialogue about what we think the requirements for a warrant SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE and whether or not there is any evidence that the phone will provide information that will help solve or prevent crimes.

> Is there some other issue we're missing here, or does that pretty much wrap it up?

I'm sorry if this conversation is upsetting or troubling to you.

> I did not ask if police CAN randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods, I asked the commenter if he or she thought they ought to be able to do so

Given that the answer to CAN they is a solid no, and that random searches of homes is in no way related to searching devices used in a conspiracy to commit murder, what is the point of this? In one instance, someone has clearly committed a conspiratorial crime, in another instance, people are living in houses with low property value.

> if there is any evidence of a conspiracy

Conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Point 1: A conspiracy took place. A plan to kill people was kept secret between multiple people until it was executed.

Point 2: Immediately prior to commission of the murders, one of the participants declared that they were part of a larger group, known for organized commission of murder and terrorist attacks.

Given these points, what information is missing that would motivate you to think that a search of the attackers' phones should be conducted? Are you really asserting that there is no evidence of conspiracy that extends beyond the deceased, despite the fact that they said they were doing this under the flag of a larger organization?

I don't see any room for a normative argument defending against a search. I don't imagine that you're arguing that the post-mortem privacy interests of the terrorists prohibit investigation. Are you suggesting that the risk from not knowing the contents of the phone are so low as to not rise to outweigh the privacy interests of anyone incidentally mentioned on the device?

Sorry for all the questions, what I'm trying to get at is that from a normative perspective, societies generally allow investigators to search the shit of known participants of violent criminal conspiracies in order to detect previously unknown elements or plans of those conspiracies. What is the moral base from which you are arguing that this nearly universally accepted standard is somehow deficient?

> Sorry for all the questions

There is no need to be sorry. They are useful for me to understand your POV and to have a conversation. I am happy to answer them as best I can.

You said that the state should be able to search the phone because it was likely to have evidence of crimes. I am arguing that higher than normal likelihood, as you might expect in a high-crime neighborhood, is not sufficient to justify a search. Instead, I am arguing that evidence (indicative of finding things that will help solve or prevent crimes), not likelihood of finding such things, should be the standard for a warrant.

> A conspiracy took place.

I should have said "a conspiracy beyond the two dead perpetrators".

> one of the participants declared that they were part of a larger group

Did she? I thought she said she "pledged allegiance" to a larger group, like one might do to a Pope you have never met or spoken with.

> what information is missing that would motivate you to think that a search of the attackers' phones should be conducted?

I discussed this elsewhere in the thread, but you may not have seen that post yet. Here is a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115698

> Are you really asserting that there is no evidence of conspiracy that extends beyond the deceased

No, I am /asking/ if there is any such evidence.

> I don't imagine that you're arguing that the post-mortem privacy interests of the terrorists prohibit investigation.

No, I don't think it prohibits investigation, but I do think that state searches of their personal effects ought to require evidence that searching their personal effects would solve old crimes or prevent new ones.

> Are you suggesting that the risk from not knowing the contents of the phone are so low as to not rise to outweigh the privacy interests of anyone incidentally mentioned on the device?

I am suggesting that those privacy interests can be balanced against evidence that searching the phone would solve old crimes or prevent new ones. I do not believe that risk is the only question. That is what I was trying to get at with my distinction between "high likelihood of" and "evidence of", above.

> What is the moral base from which you are arguing that this nearly universally accepted standard is somehow deficient?

The reason I think that evidence of solving (or helping to solve) old crimes or preventing new ones should be required before searching the possessions of any person, living or dead, murderer or pacifist, is a traditional one about privacy, but it seems like the balance I use is different than your balance.

That "societies generally allow" the state to do something, or that societies "nearly universally" do so, is not a big factor in my feelings on whether or not it is fair and just.