>Let’s for the sake of argument assume that the governments stated reasons are what they are going after.
Okay but there's no "sake" about, that's literally what we are trying to establish. If you don't believe that a logical progression of existing laws and processes into new mediums is there reason why these policy changes are taking place, contrary to basic reasoning and explicit statements from these governments while pushing for these changes, you have to have an actual reason why you believe this not to be the case.
>I mean, to me the fact that they acknowledge that anyone serious about privacy can take measures to circumvent it pretty much blows the story that this will be effective at catching people smuggling weapons designs or other serious crimes out of the water.
There are plenty of ways to get away with murder but that doesn't mean we take it off the law books because of its efficacy. That's a really silly view point.
>But you’ll surely concede that doing something at increased scale often changes the nature of that thing?
As I said in my original post, it's worth discussing and certainly worth finding a solution too. But the particular governments we're talking about have well stated reasons for their policy changes, they aren't doing it to be draconian. We all started clumping our data together. Governments didn't increase the scope of what they were looking for.
>That means it changes the nature of the request, and can’t be considered along the same lines as a suitcase.
But that's exactly what it is. There's a reason we have have "files" and "folders" as basic user data organization schemes. Border policies haven't actually changed in any of dramatic fashion. Again we just started storing more data by other data, data they were already inspecting. You might argue that this little fact is the basis for why the policy should be changed, but you have to actually argue it.