4 ms·

> 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.

> 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?
- cvwright 11y ago
  Sorry, I had to go look up what ANFO is. > Do you think ANFO fits into the category? Why or why not? It's a very interesting question. This is a great example, thanks for bringing it up. I guess I'm OK with restrictions on ANFO in the same way I'm OK with our (US) current restrictions on Browning .50 machine guns. At the same time, I doubt I'd get too worked up if someone proposed to relax either of those. I have heard some people talk about trying to restrict access to cow poop -- the fertilizer component of a homemade ANFO bomb like the one used by domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City. To me, that feels like going way too far. It's a complicated issue. What do you think?
  - dalke 11y ago
    > It's a very interesting question. Thank you. The multiple downvoters I got appear to believe otherwise. > I guess I'm OK with restrictions on ANFO in the same way I'm OK with our (US) current restrictions on Browning .50 machine guns. That is where I think the comparison between crypto and guns breaks down. You're okay with restrictions on more powerful weapons - are you okay with restrictions on civilian use of more powerful crypto? No, I don't think you are. I am not. The use cases and threat models are very different. For example, I think we are under frequent though usually irregular attack by people who want to acquire "secrets", which includes credit card and blackmail information but also more prosaic marketing information and the more Orwellian large-scale government data mining. I think it's more appropriate to compare crypto to another type of munition - personal armor. (The United States Munitions List has the category Personal Protective Equipment. This includes "Body armor providing a protection level equal to or greater than NIJ Type IV".) Yes, some people want to make access to armor more difficult, because it it used sometimes when committing a crime ("in the wrong hands, the same tech can be used for great harm"). But unlike the physical world, on the internet we face attacks every day. If there were random shootings in everyone's normal life then there wouldn't be the call to get rid of personal armor. Moreover, we face increasingly powerful attacks on crypto, and need to have mechanisms which can keep secrets against decades of future improvements. > cow poop -- the fertilizer component of a homemade ANFO bomb Whoever you heard that from was mistaken. The fertilizer component was ammonium nitrate fertilizer, not cow poop. > It's a complicated issue. What do you think? My primary interest is in highlighting how the argument you made doesn't really support your thesis. As for my own beliefs on the topic, and bearing in mind that you wrote "I have zero desire to re-enact the same old gun rights vs gun control Internet flame war yet again.", I think the distinctively American views[1] for gun ownership are rooted in the US history of Native American genocide and Black slavery, and are an expression of a form of white male power and machismo. I see no reason to discuss it further as this pigeonhole is well known. [1] By 'distinctively American' I mean to exclude the arguments one might hear in, say, Sweden for having a gun; eg, hunting and the fun hobby of target shooting.

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?

cvwright 11y ago
Sorry, I had to go look up what ANFO is. > Do you think ANFO fits into the category? Why or why not? It's a very interesting question. This is a great example, thanks for bringing it up. I guess I'm OK with restrictions on ANFO in the same way I'm OK with our (US) current restrictions on Browning .50 machine guns. At the same time, I doubt I'd get too worked up if someone proposed to relax either of those. I have heard some people talk about trying to restrict access to cow poop -- the fertilizer component of a homemade ANFO bomb like the one used by domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City. To me, that feels like going way too far. It's a complicated issue. What do you think?
- dalke 11y ago
  > It's a very interesting question. Thank you. The multiple downvoters I got appear to believe otherwise. > I guess I'm OK with restrictions on ANFO in the same way I'm OK with our (US) current restrictions on Browning .50 machine guns. That is where I think the comparison between crypto and guns breaks down. You're okay with restrictions on more powerful weapons - are you okay with restrictions on civilian use of more powerful crypto? No, I don't think you are. I am not. The use cases and threat models are very different. For example, I think we are under frequent though usually irregular attack by people who want to acquire "secrets", which includes credit card and blackmail information but also more prosaic marketing information and the more Orwellian large-scale government data mining. I think it's more appropriate to compare crypto to another type of munition - personal armor. (The United States Munitions List has the category Personal Protective Equipment. This includes "Body armor providing a protection level equal to or greater than NIJ Type IV".) Yes, some people want to make access to armor more difficult, because it it used sometimes when committing a crime ("in the wrong hands, the same tech can be used for great harm"). But unlike the physical world, on the internet we face attacks every day. If there were random shootings in everyone's normal life then there wouldn't be the call to get rid of personal armor. Moreover, we face increasingly powerful attacks on crypto, and need to have mechanisms which can keep secrets against decades of future improvements. > cow poop -- the fertilizer component of a homemade ANFO bomb Whoever you heard that from was mistaken. The fertilizer component was ammonium nitrate fertilizer, not cow poop. > It's a complicated issue. What do you think? My primary interest is in highlighting how the argument you made doesn't really support your thesis. As for my own beliefs on the topic, and bearing in mind that you wrote "I have zero desire to re-enact the same old gun rights vs gun control Internet flame war yet again.", I think the distinctively American views[1] for gun ownership are rooted in the US history of Native American genocide and Black slavery, and are an expression of a form of white male power and machismo. I see no reason to discuss it further as this pigeonhole is well known. [1] By 'distinctively American' I mean to exclude the arguments one might hear in, say, Sweden for having a gun; eg, hunting and the fun hobby of target shooting.