3 ms·

Given the original motivation for the Second Amendment, I think that the even just the FBI being able to remotely disable guns would be pretty concerning to som

by knd775 11y ago

Given the original motivation for the Second Amendment, I think that the even just the FBI being able to remotely disable guns would be pretty concerning to some.

bsder 11y ago
Um, exactly?
api 11y ago
I think a case should be made for a right to strong encryption based on the second amendment. If anything, encryption is far more relevant today to personal defense than gun ownership and does far more to protect your individual rights against both government excess and private attacks. A gun won't stop a government from watching your every move by converting every device in your house into a surveillance device and then using "parallel construction" to persecute you if some political apparatchik doesn't like your views or opinions. A gun also won't stop a criminal from emptying your bank account or stealing your identity, attacks that can today steal far more from you than a home invasion. A gun won't stop a stalker from hacking your home devices to secretly record your kids playing, or hacking your e-mail account to spy on you, etc. Encryption on the other hand can stop all these things. Cyber-attacks today are potentially even more damaging than non-violent physical invasion (burglary, etc.). Not only that, but we are very close (if not already there) to a world where you can kill someone by hacking a device. Self-driving cars, Internet connected buildings, etc., could all be used to conduct a homicide remotely. If, for example, the signing key to a car's firmware were to be leaked, then hackers could remotely flash a person's car to murder them on the highway and make it look like a hardware failure or a freak accident. A government could even do this and have almost no chance of detection. The opportunity for corruption both public and private is fairly large given how clandestinely these kinds of attacks could be conducted. Crypto is the new "well armed militia" and the new right to personal self-defense.
- LordKano 11y ago
  The "well regulated militia" is still the same. Crypto is just another weapon in the arsenal.

by knd775 11y ago

Given the original motivation for the Second Amendment, I think that the even just the FBI being able to remotely disable guns would be pretty concerning to some.

bsder 11y ago

Um, exactly?

api 11y ago

I think a case should be made for a right to strong encryption based on the second amendment. If anything, encryption is far more relevant today to personal defense than gun ownership and does far more to protect your individual rights against both government excess and private attacks. A gun won't stop a government from watching your every move by converting every device in your house into a surveillance device and then using "parallel construction" to persecute you if some political apparatchik doesn't like your views or opinions. A gun also won't stop a criminal from emptying your bank account or stealing your identity, attacks that can today steal far more from you than a home invasion. A gun won't stop a stalker from hacking your home devices to secretly record your kids playing, or hacking your e-mail account to spy on you, etc. Encryption on the other hand can stop all these things. Cyber-attacks today are potentially even more damaging than non-violent physical invasion (burglary, etc.). Not only that, but we are very close (if not already there) to a world where you can kill someone by hacking a device. Self-driving cars, Internet connected buildings, etc., could all be used to conduct a homicide remotely. If, for example, the signing key to a car's firmware were to be leaked, then hackers could remotely flash a person's car to murder them on the highway and make it look like a hardware failure or a freak accident. A government could even do this and have almost no chance of detection. The opportunity for corruption both public and private is fairly large given how clandestinely these kinds of attacks could be conducted. Crypto is the new "well armed militia" and the new right to personal self-defense.

LordKano 11y ago
The "well regulated militia" is still the same. Crypto is just another weapon in the arsenal.