5 ms·

The US has gone F&*%ing mad

30 points by TheBiv 11y ago

cvwright 11y ago
It's surprising to me that so many pro-crypto people are so stridently anti-gun. The arguments in favor of restricting or banning the two technologies appear (to me) very similar. There exists a technology that, in the hands of a law-abiding person, can be used for legitimate purposes, including protecting oneself from aggression. But in the wrong hands, the same tech can be used for great harm. The logic in favor of restrictions goes like this: Most law-abiding people don't actually require this form of protection, so we should restrict access to prevent a malicious person from causing harm. Therefore it's not surprising to me that 51% of Americans in a recent poll are siding with the FBI over Apple. Many of those same Americans are probably in favor of the assault weapons ban, etc, too.
- hga 11y ago
  I can attest that absolutely none of the pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) people I follow are siding with the FBI.
- _vk_ 11y ago
  The right to encrypt really should be the modern equivalent of the RKBA. The parallels in regards to defending against tyrannical government are stark.
  - ggchappell 11y ago
    Interesting point.
- kazinator 11y ago
  When a firearm is used for harm, it is the direct instrument of harm. Nobody was ever mowed down by the execution of a crypto routine. Also, if you're a "good guy" and carry a gun, it is in hopes that you don't use it. By contrast you actually use crypto as a matter of day-to-day safeguarding of communication and documents. Each time you https: somewhere, you're "firing the crypto gun". Crypto is no more a weapon than oxygen. The demented mind of a killer burns carbohydrates in the presence of oxygen, just like your brain. Oxygen also burns down buildings. We can't ban oxygen. Crypto is an essence, like oxygen; we need it to have confidence in privacy and authenticity so that we can proceed in day to day business. We don't have to fire a gun at some target in order to proceed in day to day life; when that is the case, it's called war.
  - hga 11y ago
    What if you relax your formulation from "shoot a gun" to "carry a gun"? My day to day life is very much influenced by many people carring guns in a way that deters criminals without their having to fire a shot, and this was true long before my state allowed civilian concealed carry and I started carrying in it. In one of its most famous formulations, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- jzymbaluk 11y ago
  The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm, while encryption is not inherently dangerous. One person with access to a gun can head down to the mall or a school and wreak massive havok. Can you say the same about one person with an RSA-2048 algorithm? I don't think the comparison between guns and encryption is fair at all, if anything, encryption might be like the balaclava that the shooter uses to cover their identity.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm The difference being how you framed that to begin with: Many people have and continue to use guns to provide food and protection. If we ban guns because a small group of people misuse them, I want: 1) Automobiles banned: http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/0888644876 http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/088... 2) Knives banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre & http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attac... 2.1) Sharp objects in general banned: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-killed-cellmate-with-pencil-28641625.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-k... The argument is always "guns make it easier to kill others". This is almost always touted by people who've never shot a gun or have never aimed a gun. Worse, they target the wrong kind of guns [0]. Namely, rifles and shotguns and "scary looking guns" that are used less often than knives are used for murder. The only compelling argument one can make is that "given the choice between a blunt object, a knife, or a gun, most murderers pick guns". There is little to no evidence that removing guns removes murderers. The reasoning that they would simply pick a different weapon seems to be tossed aside and ignored. I don't and never will own a gun. Before anyone tries to justify my "owning a gun" as their argument for why I'm biased by supporting gun rights. [0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...
  - 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- airza 11y ago
  People keep accidentally injuring or killing one another with only one of these technologies. Also, AFAIK, there have been zero suicides via crypto.
  - gregatragenet3 11y ago
    Which one? Distracted driving accidents are a leading cause of non-natural deaths, and cryptography is a neccisary technology for cellular networks. Could be argued that crypto shares responsibility for those auto fatalities. If you check the Caltrain schedule on your phone to pick a train to jump in front of, is that suicide by crypto?
    - nickthemagicman 11y ago
      The government needs to ban cars AND phones and then force everyone to wear helmets and a full body padded suit while riding our bike. For our own protection.
- dalke 11y ago
  The US until 1992 classified cryptography as a munition, so they are not completely dissimilar. But many things are munitions as well. Your argument is that cypto and guns should be viewed as equivalent because they are 'technology that, in the hands of a law-abiding person, can be used for legitimate purposes, including protecting oneself from aggression'. That's a very broad category, isn't it? It would include anything which was ever used as an improvised weapon against aggressors. For example, the Provisional IRA "were widely perceived within the nationalist community as being defenders of Irish nationalist and Roman Catholic people against aggression." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_A... ). The IRA used ANFO bombs extensively across two decades. ANFO of course also has many legitimate purposes Under your definition, ANFO possession and use should be as unrestricted as gun or crypto possession and use, yes? If not, why not? If so, what other currently restricted items fall in this category?
  - cvwright 11y ago
    > Your argument is that cypto and guns should be viewed as equivalent Whoa there, I never said they were equivalent. I said that they have some similarities. > ANFO possession and use should be as unrestricted as gun or crypto possession and use, yes? I'm not saying that. And moreover, I have zero desire to re-enact the same old gun rights vs gun control Internet flame war yet again. Please don't try to slot me into either side of those standard arguments. What I am saying is that (1) there are similarities between the two technologies and their potential for misuse, (2) it's not surprising that many people want to ban or restrict both of them, and (3) it is surprising (to me, at least) that there are so many people who feel so strongly that one should be banned and the other unlimited. Maybe a better way to say it would be this: If you support limits on the kinds of firearms and explosives that people are allowed to own, why don't you also think there should be limits on the kinds of cryptography that people are allowed to own? The closest analogue seems to be weak "export grade" crypto from the 90's -- RC4 with 40-bit keys, etc. Or maybe key escrow.
    - dalke 11y ago
      And I am saying that your (1) is so broad and encompassing as to be a useless basis for argument. As I said, ANFO also fits into category (1), which is why (2) it's not surprising that many people want restrictions on ANFO. Are you (3) equally surprised when people who want strong public strong crypto also want people to have explosives training and even a license to work with ANFO? Do you think ANFO fits into the category? Why or why not?
- rdlecler1 11y ago
  The societal damage caused by guns is 3-orders of magnitude greater than the damage caused by crypto. This says nothing about the benefits, which I'd argue are much greater still. A couple of hundred years ago the second amendment was a critical and important component of America, because it allowed the people to protect themselves against the government. That threat of direct violence is now much less, but in it's place the government now threatens our freedom by threatening our privacy. And this is a very real threat. And damage that this would do is far far greater in an information society. Huxly's 1984 wasn't a book about physical combat fought with guns it was a war fought with information.
  - angersock 11y ago
    Huxly's 1984 wasn't a book about physical combat fought with guns it was a war fought with information. Huxley was Brave New World, Orwell was 1984.
    - rdlecler1 11y ago
      I realized the mixup but it was too late to edit.
- jdietrich 11y ago
  The issue of gun control is completely absent from the US debate. Guns are discussed in terms of a false dichotomy between laissez-faire or outright banning. Contrary to the impression given in the US media, there are a lot of privately owned guns in Europe. Even in the UK, there are over 700,000 licensed gun owners. Germans can own almost anything that an American can, including handguns and so-called "assault rifles". European countries require licenses for firearms. You have to pass tests, prove yourself to be of good character and demonstrate a legitimate purpose for gun ownership. Your guns need to be registered and stored in a safe place. Your license can be revoked if you do something reckless or criminal with a firearm. The difference between crypto and a gun is that you can't actually kill someone with cryptography. A more reasonable comparison is with cars; that comparison shows the oddity of attitudes in the US. Few Americans would argue that you shouldn't need a driving license or that cars shouldn't be registered and insured. Few Americans see vehicle inspection as an affront to civil liberties.
oldmanjay 11y ago
> Which of the following would you attribute responsibility for what happened: > [Picture of guns] [Picture of iPhone] [Picture of perpetrators (not present)] The actual correct choice is missing.
nickthemagicman 11y ago
Is it the over abundance if guns or the lack of accessible mental health care? Reasons for mass shootings are more complex than 'take the guns away'. That's black and white thinking.
- hga 11y ago
  It also requires a willingness to lock up dangerous people, with two very clear cut cases of the Colorado movie theater and Virginia Tech killers. The former so alarmed his university psychiatrist that she alerted the school authorities (as I recall, she was also on the responsible committee), but they dropped the issue when he withdrew a few weeks before the shooting. In the latter, a state judge order the shooter to get outpatient treatment, but the state dropped the ball in seeing that that happened or reporting it to the Feds to put him on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which would have prevented him from buying his guns. The flip side is that while mental illness is not surprisingly strongly correlated with mass shooters, the reverse is not true, the vast majority of the mentally ill are not a danger to anyone but themselves.
  - nickthemagicman 11y ago
    Right there's a bunch of reasons. I hate guns myself but feel like the war chant of 'take der guns' is a knee jerk reaction based on absolutely no science.
13thLetter 11y ago
People need to start understanding that the more you swear and shout, the less convincing your argument is to anyone who doesn't already one hundred percent agree with you -- in fact, the more it drives away people who are on the fence. If I see an article with an obscenity in the headline or some clear attempt to shock some imagined 1950s-style population of clueless milling establishment types, I pretty much instantly move on.
johngalt 11y ago
The laws originally used to weaken encryption were issued under ITAR arms/munition restriction rules. The author doesn't see this as two sides of the same coin? People have the right to protect their privacy using encryption. They also have the right to protect their lives using arms. Just because encryption can be used to "protect terrorists" doesn't mean that is it's only use or even it's predominant use. You could say the same for firearms. The arguments surrounding gun control and encryption control are identical.
- dalke 11y ago
  Those laws applied to the exportation of cryptosystem. There were no prohibitions on domestic use of high-quality crypto. That's the same coin which currently says that you can have your own military flame thrower in the US but you can't export flame throwers to other countries without a license. So I don't think that coin is really relevant to the topic of being able to defend yourself or your privacy.
EvanPlaice 11y ago
Not hard to parse this one out. Government doesn't like encryption because it limits their ability to track/monitor people. Tracking is only supposed to apply to foreign actors but in a nation of immigrants everybody is essentially treated as a threat. compared to traditional ineffective methods (ie investigation, witness testimony, etc) of law enforcement tracking provides objective evidence of wrongdoing and removes human error from the equation. Unfortunately, in such an overly litigious society where it's nearly impossible for people to live their day-to-day lives without knowingly/unknowingly breaking the law, tracking becomes just another government funded system of subversion. Industry hates encryption because of crypto currencies. The banking industry has worked very hard to centralize it's power and eliminate competition. Fortunately, for them there's no alternative. So there's no way for people to objectively measure whether or not using one standard, centralized, and strictly controlled/manipulated currency is a good thing. By default, we delegate an unbelievable amount of power/control to a very small and centralized group of individuals on the basis of 'trust us'. Previously, there was no alternative so people quit asking whether or not that's a really bad idea. Crypto currencies aren't a threat to the current system of currency control. Rather they're an existential threat to the concept of central currency control as a whole. When the driving influence of government need is combined with the financial backing of industry, laws get passed. Whether or not they're detrimental to the individual rights of the people. Guns have no such problems. They're guaranteed by the constitution. A ton of government influence/resources comes directly from special interest groups that focus on gun rights. Industry is making a killing from all of the panic caused by the threat of removing gun ownership rights. Even if gun ownership magically became illegal overnight it would be impossible to enforce. They couldn't get the people to give up drinking alcohol during prohibition despite overwhelming support from the majority conservative Christians community at the time. What do you expect will happen when they go up against the 'you can take my guns, when you can pry them from my cold dead hands' crowd. Attempting to outlaw guns in the US is the equivalent of the government declaring war on the people. No matter how you spin the moral imperative, it'll never happen. So why do people bother debating it? Because there's an unbelievable amount of money, power, influence that can be made from stirring up panic over morally contentious issues. Politicians get a ton of exercise by grandstanding on their personal moral/liberty driven platforms. Industry rakes in a ton of money by capitalizing on the uncertainty caused by the panic. The media has a hey day over all the controversy and publishes endless streams of analysis, reactions, counter reactions, speculation, etc. It's a modern day bonanza for everybody involved. Except the people suffer because all the chaos creates and perpetuates a general culture of anger and mistrust between people divided on arbitrary lines. Cultural beliefs are very difficult to objectively measure because they last an entire generation. Without a central figurehead to influence the direction of a culture, individuals very rarely if ever change their position once it's established. I can't think of a better strategy to divide, subvert, and conquer an entire population of people. Divide people's moral identity in enough ways that suddenly they have nothing in common. All it takes is a few morally ambiguous issues and the backing of the media. The effects last a generation so a minor investment pays dividends for many decades. It's basically a thought virus for entire populations of people. Only those who are capable of thinking/acting independently of their personal moral beliefs are immune to it's effects.

30 points by TheBiv 11y ago

It's surprising to me that so many pro-crypto people are so stridently anti-gun. The arguments in favor of restricting or banning the two technologies appear (to me) very similar. There exists a technology that, in the hands of a law-abiding person, can be used for legitimate purposes, including protecting oneself from aggression. But in the wrong hands, the same tech can be used for great harm. The logic in favor of restrictions goes like this: Most law-abiding people don't actually require this form of protection, so we should restrict access to prevent a malicious person from causing harm. Therefore it's not surprising to me that 51% of Americans in a recent poll are siding with the FBI over Apple. Many of those same Americans are probably in favor of the assault weapons ban, etc, too.

hga 11y ago
I can attest that absolutely none of the pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) people I follow are siding with the FBI.
_vk_ 11y ago
The right to encrypt really should be the modern equivalent of the RKBA. The parallels in regards to defending against tyrannical government are stark.
- ggchappell 11y ago
  Interesting point.
kazinator 11y ago
When a firearm is used for harm, it is the direct instrument of harm. Nobody was ever mowed down by the execution of a crypto routine. Also, if you're a "good guy" and carry a gun, it is in hopes that you don't use it. By contrast you actually use crypto as a matter of day-to-day safeguarding of communication and documents. Each time you https: somewhere, you're "firing the crypto gun". Crypto is no more a weapon than oxygen. The demented mind of a killer burns carbohydrates in the presence of oxygen, just like your brain. Oxygen also burns down buildings. We can't ban oxygen. Crypto is an essence, like oxygen; we need it to have confidence in privacy and authenticity so that we can proceed in day to day business. We don't have to fire a gun at some target in order to proceed in day to day life; when that is the case, it's called war.
- hga 11y ago
  What if you relax your formulation from "shoot a gun" to "carry a gun"? My day to day life is very much influenced by many people carring guns in a way that deters criminals without their having to fire a shot, and this was true long before my state allowed civilian concealed carry and I started carrying in it. In one of its most famous formulations, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
jzymbaluk 11y ago
The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm, while encryption is not inherently dangerous. One person with access to a gun can head down to the mall or a school and wreak massive havok. Can you say the same about one person with an RSA-2048 algorithm? I don't think the comparison between guns and encryption is fair at all, if anything, encryption might be like the balaclava that the shooter uses to cover their identity.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >The difference is that guns are inherently dangerous: their main purpose is to cause destruction and harm The difference being how you framed that to begin with: Many people have and continue to use guns to provide food and protection. If we ban guns because a small group of people misuse them, I want: 1) Automobiles banned: http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/0888644876 http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/088... 2) Knives banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre & http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attac... 2.1) Sharp objects in general banned: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-killed-cellmate-with-pencil-28641625.html http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-k... The argument is always "guns make it easier to kill others". This is almost always touted by people who've never shot a gun or have never aimed a gun. Worse, they target the wrong kind of guns [0]. Namely, rifles and shotguns and "scary looking guns" that are used less often than knives are used for murder. The only compelling argument one can make is that "given the choice between a blunt object, a knife, or a gun, most murderers pick guns". There is little to no evidence that removing guns removes murderers. The reasoning that they would simply pick a different weapon seems to be tossed aside and ignored. I don't and never will own a gun. Before anyone tries to justify my "owning a gun" as their argument for why I'm biased by supporting gun rights. [0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...
- 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
airza 11y ago
People keep accidentally injuring or killing one another with only one of these technologies. Also, AFAIK, there have been zero suicides via crypto.
- gregatragenet3 11y ago
  Which one? Distracted driving accidents are a leading cause of non-natural deaths, and cryptography is a neccisary technology for cellular networks. Could be argued that crypto shares responsibility for those auto fatalities. If you check the Caltrain schedule on your phone to pick a train to jump in front of, is that suicide by crypto?
  - nickthemagicman 11y ago
    The government needs to ban cars AND phones and then force everyone to wear helmets and a full body padded suit while riding our bike. For our own protection.
dalke 11y ago
The US until 1992 classified cryptography as a munition, so they are not completely dissimilar. But many things are munitions as well. Your argument is that cypto and guns should be viewed as equivalent because they are 'technology that, in the hands of a law-abiding person, can be used for legitimate purposes, including protecting oneself from aggression'. That's a very broad category, isn't it? It would include anything which was ever used as an improvised weapon against aggressors. For example, the Provisional IRA "were widely perceived within the nationalist community as being defenders of Irish nationalist and Roman Catholic people against aggression." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_A... ). The IRA used ANFO bombs extensively across two decades. ANFO of course also has many legitimate purposes Under your definition, ANFO possession and use should be as unrestricted as gun or crypto possession and use, yes? If not, why not? If so, what other currently restricted items fall in this category?
- cvwright 11y ago
  > Your argument is that cypto and guns should be viewed as equivalent Whoa there, I never said they were equivalent. I said that they have some similarities. > ANFO possession and use should be as unrestricted as gun or crypto possession and use, yes? I'm not saying that. And moreover, I have zero desire to re-enact the same old gun rights vs gun control Internet flame war yet again. Please don't try to slot me into either side of those standard arguments. What I am saying is that (1) there are similarities between the two technologies and their potential for misuse, (2) it's not surprising that many people want to ban or restrict both of them, and (3) it is surprising (to me, at least) that there are so many people who feel so strongly that one should be banned and the other unlimited. Maybe a better way to say it would be this: If you support limits on the kinds of firearms and explosives that people are allowed to own, why don't you also think there should be limits on the kinds of cryptography that people are allowed to own? The closest analogue seems to be weak "export grade" crypto from the 90's -- RC4 with 40-bit keys, etc. Or maybe key escrow.
  - dalke 11y ago
    And I am saying that your (1) is so broad and encompassing as to be a useless basis for argument. As I said, ANFO also fits into category (1), which is why (2) it's not surprising that many people want restrictions on ANFO. Are you (3) equally surprised when people who want strong public strong crypto also want people to have explosives training and even a license to work with ANFO? Do you think ANFO fits into the category? Why or why not?
rdlecler1 11y ago
The societal damage caused by guns is 3-orders of magnitude greater than the damage caused by crypto. This says nothing about the benefits, which I'd argue are much greater still. A couple of hundred years ago the second amendment was a critical and important component of America, because it allowed the people to protect themselves against the government. That threat of direct violence is now much less, but in it's place the government now threatens our freedom by threatening our privacy. And this is a very real threat. And damage that this would do is far far greater in an information society. Huxly's 1984 wasn't a book about physical combat fought with guns it was a war fought with information.
- angersock 11y ago
  Huxly's 1984 wasn't a book about physical combat fought with guns it was a war fought with information. Huxley was Brave New World, Orwell was 1984.
  - rdlecler1 11y ago
    I realized the mixup but it was too late to edit.
jdietrich 11y ago
The issue of gun control is completely absent from the US debate. Guns are discussed in terms of a false dichotomy between laissez-faire or outright banning. Contrary to the impression given in the US media, there are a lot of privately owned guns in Europe. Even in the UK, there are over 700,000 licensed gun owners. Germans can own almost anything that an American can, including handguns and so-called "assault rifles". European countries require licenses for firearms. You have to pass tests, prove yourself to be of good character and demonstrate a legitimate purpose for gun ownership. Your guns need to be registered and stored in a safe place. Your license can be revoked if you do something reckless or criminal with a firearm. The difference between crypto and a gun is that you can't actually kill someone with cryptography. A more reasonable comparison is with cars; that comparison shows the oddity of attitudes in the US. Few Americans would argue that you shouldn't need a driving license or that cars shouldn't be registered and insured. Few Americans see vehicle inspection as an affront to civil liberties.

oldmanjay 11y ago

> Which of the following would you attribute responsibility for what happened: > [Picture of guns] [Picture of iPhone] [Picture of perpetrators (not present)] The actual correct choice is missing.

nickthemagicman 11y ago

Is it the over abundance if guns or the lack of accessible mental health care? Reasons for mass shootings are more complex than 'take the guns away'. That's black and white thinking.

hga 11y ago
It also requires a willingness to lock up dangerous people, with two very clear cut cases of the Colorado movie theater and Virginia Tech killers. The former so alarmed his university psychiatrist that she alerted the school authorities (as I recall, she was also on the responsible committee), but they dropped the issue when he withdrew a few weeks before the shooting. In the latter, a state judge order the shooter to get outpatient treatment, but the state dropped the ball in seeing that that happened or reporting it to the Feds to put him on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which would have prevented him from buying his guns. The flip side is that while mental illness is not surprisingly strongly correlated with mass shooters, the reverse is not true, the vast majority of the mentally ill are not a danger to anyone but themselves.
- nickthemagicman 11y ago
  Right there's a bunch of reasons. I hate guns myself but feel like the war chant of 'take der guns' is a knee jerk reaction based on absolutely no science.

13thLetter 11y ago

People need to start understanding that the more you swear and shout, the less convincing your argument is to anyone who doesn't already one hundred percent agree with you -- in fact, the more it drives away people who are on the fence. If I see an article with an obscenity in the headline or some clear attempt to shock some imagined 1950s-style population of clueless milling establishment types, I pretty much instantly move on.

johngalt 11y ago

The laws originally used to weaken encryption were issued under ITAR arms/munition restriction rules. The author doesn't see this as two sides of the same coin? People have the right to protect their privacy using encryption. They also have the right to protect their lives using arms. Just because encryption can be used to "protect terrorists" doesn't mean that is it's only use or even it's predominant use. You could say the same for firearms. The arguments surrounding gun control and encryption control are identical.

dalke 11y ago
Those laws applied to the exportation of cryptosystem. There were no prohibitions on domestic use of high-quality crypto. That's the same coin which currently says that you can have your own military flame thrower in the US but you can't export flame throwers to other countries without a license. So I don't think that coin is really relevant to the topic of being able to defend yourself or your privacy.

EvanPlaice 11y ago

Not hard to parse this one out. Government doesn't like encryption because it limits their ability to track/monitor people. Tracking is only supposed to apply to foreign actors but in a nation of immigrants everybody is essentially treated as a threat. compared to traditional ineffective methods (ie investigation, witness testimony, etc) of law enforcement tracking provides objective evidence of wrongdoing and removes human error from the equation. Unfortunately, in such an overly litigious society where it's nearly impossible for people to live their day-to-day lives without knowingly/unknowingly breaking the law, tracking becomes just another government funded system of subversion. Industry hates encryption because of crypto currencies. The banking industry has worked very hard to centralize it's power and eliminate competition. Fortunately, for them there's no alternative. So there's no way for people to objectively measure whether or not using one standard, centralized, and strictly controlled/manipulated currency is a good thing. By default, we delegate an unbelievable amount of power/control to a very small and centralized group of individuals on the basis of 'trust us'. Previously, there was no alternative so people quit asking whether or not that's a really bad idea. Crypto currencies aren't a threat to the current system of currency control. Rather they're an existential threat to the concept of central currency control as a whole. When the driving influence of government need is combined with the financial backing of industry, laws get passed. Whether or not they're detrimental to the individual rights of the people. Guns have no such problems. They're guaranteed by the constitution. A ton of government influence/resources comes directly from special interest groups that focus on gun rights. Industry is making a killing from all of the panic caused by the threat of removing gun ownership rights. Even if gun ownership magically became illegal overnight it would be impossible to enforce. They couldn't get the people to give up drinking alcohol during prohibition despite overwhelming support from the majority conservative Christians community at the time. What do you expect will happen when they go up against the 'you can take my guns, when you can pry them from my cold dead hands' crowd. Attempting to outlaw guns in the US is the equivalent of the government declaring war on the people. No matter how you spin the moral imperative, it'll never happen. So why do people bother debating it? Because there's an unbelievable amount of money, power, influence that can be made from stirring up panic over morally contentious issues. Politicians get a ton of exercise by grandstanding on their personal moral/liberty driven platforms. Industry rakes in a ton of money by capitalizing on the uncertainty caused by the panic. The media has a hey day over all the controversy and publishes endless streams of analysis, reactions, counter reactions, speculation, etc. It's a modern day bonanza for everybody involved. Except the people suffer because all the chaos creates and perpetuates a general culture of anger and mistrust between people divided on arbitrary lines. Cultural beliefs are very difficult to objectively measure because they last an entire generation. Without a central figurehead to influence the direction of a culture, individuals very rarely if ever change their position once it's established. I can't think of a better strategy to divide, subvert, and conquer an entire population of people. Divide people's moral identity in enough ways that suddenly they have nothing in common. All it takes is a few morally ambiguous issues and the backing of the media. The effects last a generation so a minor investment pays dividends for many decades. It's basically a thought virus for entire populations of people. Only those who are capable of thinking/acting independently of their personal moral beliefs are immune to it's effects.