4 ms·

I don't want "only the 'good' people to have guns and encryption". I feel they are different: Guns are used for two reasons: target practice (sport), and sho

I don't want "only the 'good' people to have guns and encryption". I feel they are different: Guns are used for two reasons: target practice (sport), and shooting to kill (hunt/attack/defend). Encryption is used to keep communications secret. We can have lengthy debates on the various uses of guns, but staying on topic, I find nothing wrong with people keeping communication secret. Sure, it'd be EASIER if the bad guys had to communication openly, but the "bad" isn't the communication, it's the bad things they DO. I find nothing morally wrong with all people, including bad guys, being able to communicate in secret. (The obvious retort is that there's nothing wrong with having guns, because it's the SHOOTING that might be bad, not the possession. Communication, however, exists for many reason, while guns exist for few, so I don't see the comparison as terribly valuable).

TeMPOraL 10y ago
The only problem with those arguments is because people use them as rhetorics instead of looking at them in a mathematical way. Guns can be used to do bad things, like threatening and killing people[0]. They can be used for good things like providing pleasure to people who use them for sports or target practice. The question you want to ask is pretty much utilitarian - how much good vs bad comes from having guns widely available? If there isn't that much good, and by banning guns you can reduce the bad significantly, then it's worth to ban guns. If banning guns doesn't actually remove that much bad, but removes the good, it's not worth banning it. The question is really about estimating the difference between good and bad in those two situations. So in case of guns, the estimates are not too clear. In case of encryption, it seems that having it available provides high amount of good (e-commerce, banking, privacy) and some amounts of bad (criminals harder to spy on by law enforcement). Banning encryption pretty much kills the entire good side, while does very little to the bad side (encryption algorithms are already open source anyway, so at best it'll affect the opportunistic simple criminals). Thus - by the same principle as with guns - it seems clear[1] that banning encryption will make the lives of good people worse. -- [0] - let's ignore the issue of legitimate use of violence/threat of violence by governments for now to simplify the point. [1] - if you agree with my estimates; however I believe arguing estimates by models and hard data is easier and more robust of a task than arguing positions based on rhetorics.
marcosdumay 10y ago
That does make the optimum amount of regulation on encryption way lower than the optimum amount of regulation on guns. Ideally, for encryption it's no regulation at all. I do agree. But keep in mind that the people comparing those two are just saying that if you defend no regulations for gun, you must also defend no regulation for encryption.
GrinningFool 10y ago
> Communication, however, exists for many reason, while guns exist for few, so I don't see the comparison as terribly valuable Encryption exists ensure the privacy of private communications. It is therefore morally superior to a gun which is used only for shooting and the convincing of others that you are able to shoot. Encryption exists to limit or prevent the open dissemination of data. It is therefore morally inferior to a gun which is used prevent harm. These are word games. The things a thing can be used for have no bearing on the morality of the thing it is used for.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

The only problem with those arguments is because people use them as rhetorics instead of looking at them in a mathematical way. Guns can be used to do bad things, like threatening and killing people[0]. They can be used for good things like providing pleasure to people who use them for sports or target practice. The question you want to ask is pretty much utilitarian - how much good vs bad comes from having guns widely available? If there isn't that much good, and by banning guns you can reduce the bad significantly, then it's worth to ban guns. If banning guns doesn't actually remove that much bad, but removes the good, it's not worth banning it. The question is really about estimating the difference between good and bad in those two situations. So in case of guns, the estimates are not too clear. In case of encryption, it seems that having it available provides high amount of good (e-commerce, banking, privacy) and some amounts of bad (criminals harder to spy on by law enforcement). Banning encryption pretty much kills the entire good side, while does very little to the bad side (encryption algorithms are already open source anyway, so at best it'll affect the opportunistic simple criminals). Thus - by the same principle as with guns - it seems clear[1] that banning encryption will make the lives of good people worse. -- [0] - let's ignore the issue of legitimate use of violence/threat of violence by governments for now to simplify the point. [1] - if you agree with my estimates; however I believe arguing estimates by models and hard data is easier and more robust of a task than arguing positions based on rhetorics.

marcosdumay 10y ago

That does make the optimum amount of regulation on encryption way lower than the optimum amount of regulation on guns. Ideally, for encryption it's no regulation at all. I do agree. But keep in mind that the people comparing those two are just saying that if you defend no regulations for gun, you must also defend no regulation for encryption.

GrinningFool 10y ago

> Communication, however, exists for many reason, while guns exist for few, so I don't see the comparison as terribly valuable Encryption exists ensure the privacy of private communications. It is therefore morally superior to a gun which is used only for shooting and the convincing of others that you are able to shoot. Encryption exists to limit or prevent the open dissemination of data. It is therefore morally inferior to a gun which is used prevent harm. These are word games. The things a thing can be used for have no bearing on the morality of the thing it is used for.