3 ms·

How Justice Scalia defended digital privacy and also held it back

9 points by pastalex 11y ago

andrewjl 11y ago
I'll admit that this is a somewhat strange viewpoint, but I hope that one day the Supreme Court declares cryptographic libraries equivalent to a munition (as it is classified by the Department of State for export control purposes) and thus subject to 2nd amendment freedoms.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Second amendment "freedoms" like background checks, prohibition of most types, mandatory licensing, legibility to private regulation, and a minefield of draconian legal gotchas? No thanks. We'll make our own freedom.
  - andrewjl 11y ago
    It's likely that the NSA has developed far more advanced cryptographic methods that they use internally. If so, then most types of 'strong' crypto are prohibited by virtue of being classified, analogous to the situation with firearms. Currently cryptography (at least in the United States) is subject to a myriad of legal gotchas, starting with export controls. The only thing preventing an outright ban given the impetus toward government assured national security is strong lobbying by tech companies and Congress men and women that represent their districts. Codifying that right into precedent will make things like a special 'backdoor' harder to ram through Congress.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      Your first part doesn't really follow, in that if those methods were independently discovered or otherwise leaked, they wouldn't be illegal. Individuals don't have nuclear weapons due to more than not knowing how to build them. I'm not opposed to your idea. I just don't see it having long-lasting effects given how laws get perverted. Rather than things being simply not illegal, draconian regulatory regimes are created around them - eg Colorado's recent pot "incorporation". A "rammed" backdoor seems unlikely to me, if only because it would be an immediate rallying point for the entire tech community, businesses included. A creeping regulatory regime that slowly boils the frog is more worrisome.

9 points by pastalex 11y ago

I'll admit that this is a somewhat strange viewpoint, but I hope that one day the Supreme Court declares cryptographic libraries equivalent to a munition (as it is classified by the Department of State for export control purposes) and thus subject to 2nd amendment freedoms.

mindslight 11y ago
Second amendment "freedoms" like background checks, prohibition of most types, mandatory licensing, legibility to private regulation, and a minefield of draconian legal gotchas? No thanks. We'll make our own freedom.
- andrewjl 11y ago
  It's likely that the NSA has developed far more advanced cryptographic methods that they use internally. If so, then most types of 'strong' crypto are prohibited by virtue of being classified, analogous to the situation with firearms. Currently cryptography (at least in the United States) is subject to a myriad of legal gotchas, starting with export controls. The only thing preventing an outright ban given the impetus toward government assured national security is strong lobbying by tech companies and Congress men and women that represent their districts. Codifying that right into precedent will make things like a special 'backdoor' harder to ram through Congress.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    Your first part doesn't really follow, in that if those methods were independently discovered or otherwise leaked, they wouldn't be illegal. Individuals don't have nuclear weapons due to more than not knowing how to build them. I'm not opposed to your idea. I just don't see it having long-lasting effects given how laws get perverted. Rather than things being simply not illegal, draconian regulatory regimes are created around them - eg Colorado's recent pot "incorporation". A "rammed" backdoor seems unlikely to me, if only because it would be an immediate rallying point for the entire tech community, businesses included. A creeping regulatory regime that slowly boils the frog is more worrisome.