5 ms·

>Doing physics or chemistry can directly harm people. Doing math or drawing pictures can't. Like the article said analogies are no fun. I agree with your premi

>Doing physics or chemistry can directly harm people. Doing math or drawing pictures can't. Like the article said analogies are no fun. I agree with your premise but not with your conclusion. You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry?

CamperBob2 11y ago
Doing physics or chemistry can directly harm people. Doing math or drawing pictures can't. This argument might have worked, up until the point when they criminalized cartoon child pornography. You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry? No.
- nekopa 11y ago
  From what I remember, the child pon drawing law was about people taking child pon photography, and running it through a Photoshop filter to make it look like a drawing. That way people were trying to get around the law. Also, it was trivial to return the 'drawing' back into a photo by reversing the filter.
  - hutzlibu 11y ago
    Hm, but then this is something different, if you just have to reverse a filter, then normal child porn laws apply, I would think.
dingusoo 11y ago
> You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry? I would not agree. Encryption can only indirectly harm people, in the same vein as speech.
- RockyMcNuts 11y ago
  All kinds of speech is regulated... talking about a murder is conspiracy, financial transactions are just bits moving around and they are highly regulated, talking about transactions incorrectly is fraud, yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater is a crime... as soon as there's a nexus between speech and action the speech is regulated.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    And this is why we have the term mens rea. Obviously there is much more to conspiracy than "talking about a murder," or Stephen King would be locked up in Supermax. It's as if Comey is asking for the right to review every murder mystery or horror novel before it hits the shelves. If he wants his job to be that easy, he should send his resume to North Korea.

CamperBob2 11y ago

Doing physics or chemistry can directly harm people. Doing math or drawing pictures can't. This argument might have worked, up until the point when they criminalized cartoon child pornography. You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry? No.

nekopa 11y ago
From what I remember, the child pon drawing law was about people taking child pon photography, and running it through a Photoshop filter to make it look like a drawing. That way people were trying to get around the law. Also, it was trivial to return the 'drawing' back into a photo by reversing the filter.
- hutzlibu 11y ago
  Hm, but then this is something different, if you just have to reverse a filter, then normal child porn laws apply, I would think.

dingusoo 11y ago

> You will perhaps agree that encryption has the potential to directly harm people just as physics or chemistry? I would not agree. Encryption can only indirectly harm people, in the same vein as speech.

RockyMcNuts 11y ago
All kinds of speech is regulated... talking about a murder is conspiracy, financial transactions are just bits moving around and they are highly regulated, talking about transactions incorrectly is fraud, yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater is a crime... as soon as there's a nexus between speech and action the speech is regulated.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  And this is why we have the term mens rea. Obviously there is much more to conspiracy than "talking about a murder," or Stephen King would be locked up in Supermax. It's as if Comey is asking for the right to review every murder mystery or horror novel before it hits the shelves. If he wants his job to be that easy, he should send his resume to North Korea.