3 ms·

I think the strongest argument for an American audience who is unfamiliar with technology is that encryption should be included under second amendment rights.

I think the strongest argument for an American audience who is unfamiliar with technology is that encryption should be included under second amendment rights. "Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people", "blaming the manufacturer for the actions of the operator", "even if we ban them, bad guys will still use them", etc. If the right to bear arms is defined as the right to protection against totalitarian government I would think that encryption falls into that bucket. Maybe we should get the NRA involved in this argument...

gargravarr 9y ago
As predicted by Randall Munroe some years ago: https://xkcd.com/504/ https://xkcd.com/504/
- zebrafish 9y ago
  Granted, guns have serial numbers and there is a list of registered owners. My argument falls apart there.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    Legal guns have serial numbers and legal gun owners are registered. My grandpa has a house full of guns with no official registration. I wouldn't look to that as an example of a well-functioning regulation system.
  - Zak 9y ago
    In most of the US, no registration or license is required to legally own a gun, and the Federal government is barred from attempting to create a registry.
    - eric_h 9y ago
      They literally can't even use computers to match weapons to owners. It's all on paper.
jff 9y ago
Strong crypto used to be considered 'arms'; export was forbidden under ITAR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_... If one accepts that part of the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (but please, let's not start the usual argument about asymmetric warfare), strong encryption capabilities would certainly be an important component of that in the modern era. But that's just my stance, as someone who likes guns and crypto.

gargravarr 9y ago

As predicted by Randall Munroe some years ago: https://xkcd.com/504/ https://xkcd.com/504/

zebrafish 9y ago
Granted, guns have serial numbers and there is a list of registered owners. My argument falls apart there.
- freehunter 9y ago
  Legal guns have serial numbers and legal gun owners are registered. My grandpa has a house full of guns with no official registration. I wouldn't look to that as an example of a well-functioning regulation system.
- Zak 9y ago
  In most of the US, no registration or license is required to legally own a gun, and the Federal government is barred from attempting to create a registry.
  - eric_h 9y ago
    They literally can't even use computers to match weapons to owners. It's all on paper.

jff 9y ago

Strong crypto used to be considered 'arms'; export was forbidden under ITAR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_... If one accepts that part of the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (but please, let's not start the usual argument about asymmetric warfare), strong encryption capabilities would certainly be an important component of that in the modern era. But that's just my stance, as someone who likes guns and crypto.