6 ms·

I wish the gun nuts in the US realize that the constitutional protection of gun rights was drafted in a time when guns weren't niche and were necessary as a che

I wish the gun nuts in the US realize that the constitutional protection of gun rights was drafted in a time when guns weren't niche and were necessary as a check on government power. Today, encryption is a check on government overreach, and guns are effectively a vestigial hobby (unless you're in a gang or the illicit drug industry).

fantispug 9y ago
This is a great analogy. Encrypted messages are used by both criminals and whistleblowers. Weakening encryption will likely help apprehend criminals and even create a chilling effect on criminal communications. It will equally help apprehend police and government whistleblowers and create a chilling effect on criticism of authorities.
joegosse 9y ago
How do we start the process of getting an amendment protecting encryption added to the Constitution?
- protomyth 9y ago
  Either through Congress or a convention of the States. More likely through the States if you can hop on that movement.
pdkl95 9y ago
Although export restrictions on encryption were eased after Bernstein v United States and the political fight over the 'international edition" of Netscape/etc, I believe encryption for military purposes is still on the Munitions List. Therefor, the 2nd Amendment should apply.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Actually, export restrictions on encryption are still there – you de jure need approval from the DoD. There was a huge thread about it on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10835045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10835045
benevol 9y ago
> encryption is a check on government overreach It's necessary, but certainly not sufficient. There are tons of ways that the 5-eyes nations' mass surveillance agencies can get even to those who do use end-to-end encryption.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
protomyth 9y ago
Well, if you call us gun nuts, we might not respond well. Most of the folks I know who love guns are pretty protective of their other rights, but fighting constantly to keep one right does tend to drain the coffers for other causes. FreedomWorks cares quite a bit about both. I am not fond of the EFF because they don’t win. I would gladly contribute to an NRA for encryption if it was shown the people running it would use the exact same tactics as the NRA. No prisoners, no compromise, and flag waving. It’s better to be feared than weak in politics. As I understand it, Australia already got rid of guns, so it’s no real surprise that their government is taking more of their liberties away.
- DennisP 9y ago
  There are an awful lot of people in the U.S. who are very committed to protecting gun rights, and are willing to vote on that issue. I don't think we've gotten to that point with crypto; it's a much newer issue, kinda geeky, way less visceral. So the NRA collects a lot of money, targets unsupportive politicians, and can turn votes against them. The EFF has less money, and it's questionable whether ads attacking politicians for not supporting crypto would work. To the extent gun owners have bought the Republican scaremongering about terrorists, it might even backfire. The EFF does what it can by focusing its efforts on the judicial system instead.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    The legislature writes the laws. People need to make it election suicide to oppose encryption. I won’t go down the road on your terrorist comment since it has nothing to do with the article.
    - DennisP 9y ago
      My point is that the government claims it needs to break encryption to protect us from terrorists. Republicans tend to push that anti-terrorist angle pretty hard. Given that most activist gun owners are Republicans, they might not be all that supportive of cryptography. Libertarian gun owners definitely support both gun rights and crypto, but that's a smaller group. You can only carry out the "election suicide" strategy if you have enough popular support. Until then you're stuck with what the EFF does: education and legal action.
gozur88 9y ago
I wish anti-gun nuts would realize guns are just as relevant as ever as a means of checking government power. Besides, self protection is a basic human right.
- raarts 9y ago
  Are there examples of gun ubiquity actually having worked (except for the obvious one) against some government abusing its power?
  - chrischen 9y ago
    Phillipines? I hear ISIS took over a whole city, undoubtedly with guns. You can also be the judge for whether the extrajudicial killings are working.
- chrischen 9y ago
  1) My comment was not specifically anti-gun 2) Nuclear weapons are the only physical weapon that can check the US Government. That's why they shit their paints when a basically inconsequential country such as North Korea launches a potential nuclear rocket. 3) In the 1700s guns were the best weapon of the time. Nuclear weapons did not exist. Civilians were able to own basically military grade weapons and could theoretically rebel and potentially win. 4) In current days, if you wanted to legitimately make the claim of government check on power with civilian weapon ownership, you'd at least have to argue for military grade, fully automatic weaponry ownership rights by civilians. Not to mention the ability to stockpile explosive weapons and missiles. A bunch of civilians with gimped semi-auto ARs and hunting rifles would have been the 18th century equivalent of the right to bear bow and arrows or pitchforks and shovels.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    1) My comment was as not specifically pro-gun as yours was anti-gun. 2) Yes, that's why the USG had no trouble brushing aside the Iraqis and people in Afghanistan who didn't want us there. 3) Irrelevant. Nuclear weapons are so hopelessly overscaled you can't actually use them - they're only good for threatening. It's not like Washington is going to nuke Los Angeles. The reality is every successful indigenous revolution requires a schism in the military. That's the way it's always been. But an armed citizenry means a whole lot fewer military units have to defect. 4) Soldiers in the US army don't get fully automatic weapons at the individual level - those are squad level weapons. The fancy drones and missiles require a fully functional economy to create and maintain. Once a civil war starts all those supply lines dry up.
cat199 9y ago
Re: firearms Whether guns are 'niche' are not is to some extent dictated by culture and existing legislation.. In DC, they were all but banned until recently, and I believe still are hard to come by.. big surprise, they are very 'niche' (unless, as you said, you were in a gang or illicit drug industry) Places where this is not the case and where you will find as you call them 'gun nuts', they are very common, and it is to some extent more 'niche' to be a gun restriction advocate, who, from this perspective are 'gun control nuts'. Or at least the two are more balanced ends of a spectrum. Many people in the latter category still view firearms as a necessary check on government power, and those who advocate gun control as wishing to remove this check, much along the same logic as you support in your argument against encryption control. As for whether guns could or could not be an effective check on government power in the modern 'high tech' age - see just about any ground conflict against armed insurgents the US has tried to involve itself in in the past 50 or so years.. while it hasn't always gone the way of the 'enemies', it has rarely been smooth sailing.. It is no surprise that some of the biggest restrictions against firearms have come during periods of rebellion/lawlessness - prohibition and gangs (1938 act) and the turmoil of the late 60's (1968 act).. I fail to see how your line of reasoning doesn't lead to a future where encryption should be banned because the state can crack it anyway..
- chrischen 9y ago
  I consider it niche since most people do not own guns, and if they do, do not usefully use it outside of a hobby. As for gang violence and illicit activities, a gun becomes more than a hobby and an actual tool.
exadeci 9y ago
Guns are protected by companies that makes billions out of them, encryption? No one makes that kind of money with it.

fantispug 9y ago

This is a great analogy. Encrypted messages are used by both criminals and whistleblowers. Weakening encryption will likely help apprehend criminals and even create a chilling effect on criminal communications. It will equally help apprehend police and government whistleblowers and create a chilling effect on criticism of authorities.

joegosse 9y ago

How do we start the process of getting an amendment protecting encryption added to the Constitution?

protomyth 9y ago
Either through Congress or a convention of the States. More likely through the States if you can hop on that movement.

pdkl95 9y ago

Although export restrictions on encryption were eased after Bernstein v United States and the political fight over the 'international edition" of Netscape/etc, I believe encryption for military purposes is still on the Munitions List. Therefor, the 2nd Amendment should apply.

kuschku 9y ago
Actually, export restrictions on encryption are still there – you de jure need approval from the DoD. There was a huge thread about it on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10835045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10835045

benevol 9y ago

> encryption is a check on government overreach It's necessary, but certainly not sufficient. There are tons of ways that the 5-eyes nations' mass surveillance agencies can get even to those who do use end-to-end encryption.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

protomyth 9y ago

Well, if you call us gun nuts, we might not respond well. Most of the folks I know who love guns are pretty protective of their other rights, but fighting constantly to keep one right does tend to drain the coffers for other causes. FreedomWorks cares quite a bit about both. I am not fond of the EFF because they don’t win. I would gladly contribute to an NRA for encryption if it was shown the people running it would use the exact same tactics as the NRA. No prisoners, no compromise, and flag waving. It’s better to be feared than weak in politics. As I understand it, Australia already got rid of guns, so it’s no real surprise that their government is taking more of their liberties away.

DennisP 9y ago
There are an awful lot of people in the U.S. who are very committed to protecting gun rights, and are willing to vote on that issue. I don't think we've gotten to that point with crypto; it's a much newer issue, kinda geeky, way less visceral. So the NRA collects a lot of money, targets unsupportive politicians, and can turn votes against them. The EFF has less money, and it's questionable whether ads attacking politicians for not supporting crypto would work. To the extent gun owners have bought the Republican scaremongering about terrorists, it might even backfire. The EFF does what it can by focusing its efforts on the judicial system instead.
- protomyth 9y ago
  The legislature writes the laws. People need to make it election suicide to oppose encryption. I won’t go down the road on your terrorist comment since it has nothing to do with the article.
  - DennisP 9y ago
    My point is that the government claims it needs to break encryption to protect us from terrorists. Republicans tend to push that anti-terrorist angle pretty hard. Given that most activist gun owners are Republicans, they might not be all that supportive of cryptography. Libertarian gun owners definitely support both gun rights and crypto, but that's a smaller group. You can only carry out the "election suicide" strategy if you have enough popular support. Until then you're stuck with what the EFF does: education and legal action.

gozur88 9y ago

I wish anti-gun nuts would realize guns are just as relevant as ever as a means of checking government power. Besides, self protection is a basic human right.

raarts 9y ago
Are there examples of gun ubiquity actually having worked (except for the obvious one) against some government abusing its power?
- chrischen 9y ago
  Phillipines? I hear ISIS took over a whole city, undoubtedly with guns. You can also be the judge for whether the extrajudicial killings are working.
chrischen 9y ago
1) My comment was not specifically anti-gun 2) Nuclear weapons are the only physical weapon that can check the US Government. That's why they shit their paints when a basically inconsequential country such as North Korea launches a potential nuclear rocket. 3) In the 1700s guns were the best weapon of the time. Nuclear weapons did not exist. Civilians were able to own basically military grade weapons and could theoretically rebel and potentially win. 4) In current days, if you wanted to legitimately make the claim of government check on power with civilian weapon ownership, you'd at least have to argue for military grade, fully automatic weaponry ownership rights by civilians. Not to mention the ability to stockpile explosive weapons and missiles. A bunch of civilians with gimped semi-auto ARs and hunting rifles would have been the 18th century equivalent of the right to bear bow and arrows or pitchforks and shovels.
- gozur88 9y ago
  1) My comment was as not specifically pro-gun as yours was anti-gun. 2) Yes, that's why the USG had no trouble brushing aside the Iraqis and people in Afghanistan who didn't want us there. 3) Irrelevant. Nuclear weapons are so hopelessly overscaled you can't actually use them - they're only good for threatening. It's not like Washington is going to nuke Los Angeles. The reality is every successful indigenous revolution requires a schism in the military. That's the way it's always been. But an armed citizenry means a whole lot fewer military units have to defect. 4) Soldiers in the US army don't get fully automatic weapons at the individual level - those are squad level weapons. The fancy drones and missiles require a fully functional economy to create and maintain. Once a civil war starts all those supply lines dry up.

cat199 9y ago

Re: firearms Whether guns are 'niche' are not is to some extent dictated by culture and existing legislation.. In DC, they were all but banned until recently, and I believe still are hard to come by.. big surprise, they are very 'niche' (unless, as you said, you were in a gang or illicit drug industry) Places where this is not the case and where you will find as you call them 'gun nuts', they are very common, and it is to some extent more 'niche' to be a gun restriction advocate, who, from this perspective are 'gun control nuts'. Or at least the two are more balanced ends of a spectrum. Many people in the latter category still view firearms as a necessary check on government power, and those who advocate gun control as wishing to remove this check, much along the same logic as you support in your argument against encryption control. As for whether guns could or could not be an effective check on government power in the modern 'high tech' age - see just about any ground conflict against armed insurgents the US has tried to involve itself in in the past 50 or so years.. while it hasn't always gone the way of the 'enemies', it has rarely been smooth sailing.. It is no surprise that some of the biggest restrictions against firearms have come during periods of rebellion/lawlessness - prohibition and gangs (1938 act) and the turmoil of the late 60's (1968 act).. I fail to see how your line of reasoning doesn't lead to a future where encryption should be banned because the state can crack it anyway..

chrischen 9y ago
I consider it niche since most people do not own guns, and if they do, do not usefully use it outside of a hobby. As for gang violence and illicit activities, a gun becomes more than a hobby and an actual tool.

exadeci 9y ago

Guns are protected by companies that makes billions out of them, encryption? No one makes that kind of money with it.