5 ms·

Spotted on Twitter: "If banning encryption would stop terrorists using it, why don’t they just make terrorism illegal and be done with it?"

by prawn 11y ago

0942v8653 11y ago
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 - > I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. > Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.
- PKop 11y ago
  Don't assume all, or even many, Republican voters believe this. Those of a more libertarian bent unequivocally do not. Sure, many of the politicians seem to support outlawing encryption. But that's true of both parties is it not?
  - riskable 11y ago
    Considering the average age of Republicans I doubt the majority of them even understand what encryption is let alone what the impact of outlawing it would be... http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dying-off-literally-118035 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dy... http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-part...
- hueving 11y ago
  Stop spreading partisan crap. Read the first response to that comment.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    It's true that many, if not most, Democratic politicians could be termed "anti-encryption." Diane Feinstein is perhaps the most notorious example of a Democrat who has promoted this and other "authoritarian" views. But the fact remains the hypocrisy noted is more applicable to Republicans, who tend to oppose gun control much more frequently than Democrats.
  - cortesoft 11y ago
    Yeah, but the democrats also want to ban guns, so they aren't hypocrites, they are just wrong.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  My favorite is the hippies who argue that we should legalize drugs because outlawing them didn't stop people from getting drugs- while also arguing that we should outlaw guns to stop people from getting guns.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    One of these things is designed to hurt other humans, while the other is not.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      But both of them do hurt other humans, regardless of the design.
- dx211 11y ago
  That's a misleading comparison. I think the argument is that if you have a gun you can protect yourself from another person with a gun. A better analogy would be how some jurisdictions make bullet proof vests and gas masks illegal because they can be used (by bad people) to thwart police.
- beedogs 11y ago
  Dianne Feinstein isn't a Republican and she wants to take away our encryption, too.
tgb 11y ago
The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. At which point the problem of "find the criminals" is reduced to the problem of "find the encryption users". Encrypting your tweets will make them relatively identifiable.
- bad_user 11y ago
  The output of good encryption algorithms is indistinguishable from noise. And you can embed noise in anything, like in images, or in audio or video streams. And this is a worst case scenario, assuming the US convinces the whole world to ban encryption, which is highly unlikely. I mean besides the terrorists meeting the old fashioned way, in person.
- lukeschlather 11y ago
  I'm pro-encryption, but I think your argument is lazy and not fact-based. We see from this article that criminals are not particularly skilled at hiding their communications. You and I both want a world where encryption is ubiquitous and easy to use. Where text messages are somehow encrypted-by-default. That does mean in this instance police would have had to use some other means to apprehend Abaaoud. That's a cost of everyone having privacy. Banning encryption will stop the majority of violent/petty criminals who are not educated and poorly funded from using it. I won't claim otherwise. I think the answer, as always, is educating people and making sure they have decent responsibilities and resources at their disposal so they won't want to do harm. People who can trust their government to give them privacy and protect their interests won't lash out.
  - tgb 11y ago
    Sorry but I have no idea how that addresses my comment. Not that I disagree with what you're saying, it just seems orthogonal or as if you meant to reply to someone else.
    - lukeschlather 11y ago
      > The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. It's not an either/or situation, banning encryption is designed primarily to stop criminals from using it. It is also effective. It's obviously not 100% effective, it's probably more like 75% effective. I think you're assuming that most of the people arguing for prohibition are dreaming of a police state, and I think you're constructing an oversimplification that doesn't acknowledge the facts.

Spotted on Twitter: "If banning encryption would stop terrorists using it, why don’t they just make terrorism illegal and be done with it?"

by prawn 11y ago

Spotted on Twitter: "If banning encryption would stop terrorists using it, why don’t they just make terrorism illegal and be done with it?"

0942v8653 11y ago

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591621 - > I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. > Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.

PKop 11y ago
Don't assume all, or even many, Republican voters believe this. Those of a more libertarian bent unequivocally do not. Sure, many of the politicians seem to support outlawing encryption. But that's true of both parties is it not?
- riskable 11y ago
  Considering the average age of Republicans I doubt the majority of them even understand what encryption is let alone what the impact of outlawing it would be... http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dying-off-literally-118035 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/the-gop-is-dy... http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-part...
hueving 11y ago
Stop spreading partisan crap. Read the first response to that comment.
- rtl49 11y ago
  It's true that many, if not most, Democratic politicians could be termed "anti-encryption." Diane Feinstein is perhaps the most notorious example of a Democrat who has promoted this and other "authoritarian" views. But the fact remains the hypocrisy noted is more applicable to Republicans, who tend to oppose gun control much more frequently than Democrats.
- cortesoft 11y ago
  Yeah, but the democrats also want to ban guns, so they aren't hypocrites, they are just wrong.
sliverstorm 11y ago
My favorite is the hippies who argue that we should legalize drugs because outlawing them didn't stop people from getting drugs- while also arguing that we should outlaw guns to stop people from getting guns.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  One of these things is designed to hurt other humans, while the other is not.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    But both of them do hurt other humans, regardless of the design.
dx211 11y ago
That's a misleading comparison. I think the argument is that if you have a gun you can protect yourself from another person with a gun. A better analogy would be how some jurisdictions make bullet proof vests and gas masks illegal because they can be used (by bad people) to thwart police.
beedogs 11y ago
Dianne Feinstein isn't a Republican and she wants to take away our encryption, too.

tgb 11y ago

The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. At which point the problem of "find the criminals" is reduced to the problem of "find the encryption users". Encrypting your tweets will make them relatively identifiable.

bad_user 11y ago
The output of good encryption algorithms is indistinguishable from noise. And you can embed noise in anything, like in images, or in audio or video streams. And this is a worst case scenario, assuming the US convinces the whole world to ban encryption, which is highly unlikely. I mean besides the terrorists meeting the old fashioned way, in person.
lukeschlather 11y ago
I'm pro-encryption, but I think your argument is lazy and not fact-based. We see from this article that criminals are not particularly skilled at hiding their communications. You and I both want a world where encryption is ubiquitous and easy to use. Where text messages are somehow encrypted-by-default. That does mean in this instance police would have had to use some other means to apprehend Abaaoud. That's a cost of everyone having privacy. Banning encryption will stop the majority of violent/petty criminals who are not educated and poorly funded from using it. I won't claim otherwise. I think the answer, as always, is educating people and making sure they have decent responsibilities and resources at their disposal so they won't want to do harm. People who can trust their government to give them privacy and protect their interests won't lash out.
- tgb 11y ago
  Sorry but I have no idea how that addresses my comment. Not that I disagree with what you're saying, it just seems orthogonal or as if you meant to reply to someone else.
  - lukeschlather 11y ago
    > The point of banning encryption isn't too stop criminals from using it, it's to stop non-criminals. It's not an either/or situation, banning encryption is designed primarily to stop criminals from using it. It is also effective. It's obviously not 100% effective, it's probably more like 75% effective. I think you're assuming that most of the people arguing for prohibition are dreaming of a police state, and I think you're constructing an oversimplification that doesn't acknowledge the facts.