10 ms·
My memory isn't short. You made a point of talking about cryptography. The US government also classified crypto as munitions in order to control its usage and
by danesparza 9y ago
My memory isn't short.
You made a point of talking about cryptography. The US government also classified crypto as munitions in order to control its usage and export: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
This had very negative effects on cryptography in general (see the FREAK exploit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREAK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREAK )
Also, why wouldn't this be employed to better monitor Stingray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_phone_tracker) systems?
I don't think the government (and specifically, the military) should be viewed as a non-partisan actor when it comes to technology.
- wolco 9y agoThey have an agenda that is clear but it doesn't mean they should be shutout because the investment they make can help push new ideas forward.
- smokeyj 9y agoWe should embrace the development of a surveillance state because it could spin-off some cool tech? Hmmm.
- wolco 9y agoIt worked when they created the internet. The original purpose was not what the internet became.
- totalZero 9y agoAlternatively, there is an abundance of private sources of funding. One of the founding principles of American government was the freedom from state surveillance and intrusion into private homes. Nowadays, the federal government of the USA can legally use any technology that is patented, so why should they be allowed to restrict inventors from disclosing or selling IP that inhibits surveillance?
- jbob2000 9y agoOh man, is this why I have to complete all this encryption and export compliance bullcrap every time I have an iOS release?
- mtgx 9y agoWe also know that independent researchers often invented new cryptographic techniques in parallel with the military.
- treebeard901 9y agoThe classification of cryptography as munitions was an interesting choice. The first amendment may protect domestic encryption capabilities as stated by the wikipedia article. From a legal standpoint, does encryption being classified as munitions also put it into second amendment territory? As information becomes weaponized, it's an interesting thought. The first amendment is arguably more vulnerable these days, so I wonder if perhaps a second amendment argument could be made in support of domestic encryption. It certainly would help with marketing the argument to a certain segment of the population.
- cloudwalking 9y agoIt does not, because the 2nd amendment protects arms, not munitions (for example, bombs).
- localhost 9y agoHere is the entire text of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
- madengr 9y agoWhat's the difference? The 2A certainly applies to cannons. Are those arms or munitions? Grenades are legal to own, just need the tax stamp.
- danesparza 9y agoArms are munitions. Not all munitions are arms. More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Munitions_List
- hnal943 9y agoI think the distinction is between "arms" and "ordinance". Reading through the comments here, it seems "munitions" is a super set of both.
- mey 9y agoSee also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
- convolvatron 9y agothis itar business had a huge chilling effect on the formative years of internet protocol design. public key was available at the time. here were alot of loud voices in ietf clamoring for strong foundational security. The US position made it highly impractical to use, and may have cost us an effective and ubiquitous security/identity model.
- darawk 9y agoYes, they made some bad choices, and then they corrected them. They also funded the research that created the field. Things can be morally mixed. On balance though, the US military funding for cryptography has been pretty clearly a good thing.
- marricks 9y agoI love how any defense of US military history often boils down to, “sure they did terrible things in the past, but we definitely learned from them.” I’m sure people have been saying that for decades if not centuries. Terrible things just get declassified slowly so we only learn about them later.
- darawk 9y agoYou realize that the US military is the reason the world isn't ruled by Hitler and/or Stalin, right?