4 ms·

I've long wondered whether this is a fight where the NRA would be an unlikely ally. It shouldn't be that hard to cast strong encryption as a 2nd amendment issu

by pdpi 9y ago

I've long wondered whether this is a fight where the NRA would be an unlikely ally. It shouldn't be that hard to cast strong encryption as a 2nd amendment issue, in emotional if not constitutional terms.

bjt2n3904 9y ago
I've been making that argument for some time now. The similarity between "responsible encryption laws" and "responsible gun laws" is stunning.
- ataturk 9y ago
  We have "responsible gun laws" from sea to shining sea and they haven't helped much. Background checks are the greatest false sense of security ever invented. The people who call for responsible gun laws really just want guns banned. Which not coincidentally is what the people who want responsible encryption laws to do also--they have wanted to ban crypto since Zimmerman poked them all in the eye back in the '90s. It truly amazes me that we are even having this debate again! Either we are free people able to do as we please with our property or we are serfs on a plantation. Free people have both the right to self defense and access to the proper tools without them being dumbed down.
- cvwright 9y ago
  Just wait until all the dirty tricks from the gun control debate start getting used against encryption. Lots of cognitive dissonance incoming for many in our community...
jlgaddis 9y ago
I can't really articulate why but, for some reason, I don't really see the NRA getting involved in this too deeply. I could see them issuing a statement opposing it or some such but not much beyond that. (Lifetime member of the NRA but I have no special insight or knowledge.)
bunderbunder 9y ago
On the one hand, there's already a lot of US legal precedent for encryption as a form of arms, in the form of laws that classify encryption technology as such for export purposes. On the other hand, there's even more US legal precedent demonstrating the Supreme Court thinks that the 2nd Amendment applies very narrowly to a very specific class of arms. The Supreme Court fairly recently decided that my city's former ban on handguns is unconstitutional. This decision has not, however, been construed to also cover local bans on things like throwing knives. Nor, I think, would it cover the bans on things like small rockets, even though they are usable as (and originally invented to be) weapons. I'm inclined to say that the latter body of precedent is the one that the Court would choose to lean on if this were cast as a 2nd Amendment issue.
- pdpi 9y ago
  > I'm inclined to say that the latter body of precedent is the one that the Court would choose to lean on if this were cast as a 2nd Amendment issue. Like I said: emotionally, if not constitutionally. For legislators, what the courts say is immaterial, if voting for such a bill is likely to make the unelectable.
tmearnest 9y ago
I don't think it's a 2nd amendment issue, per se. But it's very similar. If you're afraid of your freedom to stand up against a tyrannical government being taken away, you should be especially afraid of your right to talk freely about those issues being taken away. That's what the NRA people should be thinking about.
- pqh 9y ago
  I mean, I'm in favor of gun control for practical, statistical reasons. I want less gun violence, if we can manage to implement some means of accomplishing that. Hard problem, I know. But I understand the intent of the second amendment. It's not to allow hunting. It's not to allow you to protect your home from robbers. It's definitely a statement of defiance to tyrannical government. So if the NRA doesn't agree to some similar line of thought on encryption, they're hypocrites.
mikeash 9y ago
I really doubt it. The NRA should have been a natural ally in the Philando Castile case, for example, but they weren't. It might have worked back in the 90s when they were all about resisting the government and complaining about "jack-booted thugs" in uniform, but these days they're mostly in favor of authoritarianism.
cvwright 9y ago
I hope so. We're going to need all the allies we can muster.

by pdpi 9y ago

bjt2n3904 9y ago

I've been making that argument for some time now. The similarity between "responsible encryption laws" and "responsible gun laws" is stunning.

ataturk 9y ago
We have "responsible gun laws" from sea to shining sea and they haven't helped much. Background checks are the greatest false sense of security ever invented. The people who call for responsible gun laws really just want guns banned. Which not coincidentally is what the people who want responsible encryption laws to do also--they have wanted to ban crypto since Zimmerman poked them all in the eye back in the '90s. It truly amazes me that we are even having this debate again! Either we are free people able to do as we please with our property or we are serfs on a plantation. Free people have both the right to self defense and access to the proper tools without them being dumbed down.
cvwright 9y ago
Just wait until all the dirty tricks from the gun control debate start getting used against encryption. Lots of cognitive dissonance incoming for many in our community...

jlgaddis 9y ago

I can't really articulate why but, for some reason, I don't really see the NRA getting involved in this too deeply. I could see them issuing a statement opposing it or some such but not much beyond that. (Lifetime member of the NRA but I have no special insight or knowledge.)

bunderbunder 9y ago

On the one hand, there's already a lot of US legal precedent for encryption as a form of arms, in the form of laws that classify encryption technology as such for export purposes. On the other hand, there's even more US legal precedent demonstrating the Supreme Court thinks that the 2nd Amendment applies very narrowly to a very specific class of arms. The Supreme Court fairly recently decided that my city's former ban on handguns is unconstitutional. This decision has not, however, been construed to also cover local bans on things like throwing knives. Nor, I think, would it cover the bans on things like small rockets, even though they are usable as (and originally invented to be) weapons. I'm inclined to say that the latter body of precedent is the one that the Court would choose to lean on if this were cast as a 2nd Amendment issue.

pdpi 9y ago
> I'm inclined to say that the latter body of precedent is the one that the Court would choose to lean on if this were cast as a 2nd Amendment issue. Like I said: emotionally, if not constitutionally. For legislators, what the courts say is immaterial, if voting for such a bill is likely to make the unelectable.

tmearnest 9y ago

I don't think it's a 2nd amendment issue, per se. But it's very similar. If you're afraid of your freedom to stand up against a tyrannical government being taken away, you should be especially afraid of your right to talk freely about those issues being taken away. That's what the NRA people should be thinking about.

pqh 9y ago
I mean, I'm in favor of gun control for practical, statistical reasons. I want less gun violence, if we can manage to implement some means of accomplishing that. Hard problem, I know. But I understand the intent of the second amendment. It's not to allow hunting. It's not to allow you to protect your home from robbers. It's definitely a statement of defiance to tyrannical government. So if the NRA doesn't agree to some similar line of thought on encryption, they're hypocrites.

mikeash 9y ago

I really doubt it. The NRA should have been a natural ally in the Philando Castile case, for example, but they weren't. It might have worked back in the 90s when they were all about resisting the government and complaining about "jack-booted thugs" in uniform, but these days they're mostly in favor of authoritarianism.

cvwright 9y ago

I hope so. We're going to need all the allies we can muster.