4 ms·

I'm glad the story brought up the comparisons to the early days when exporting crypto was similarly restricted under munitions laws. That era was similarly full

I'm glad the story brought up the comparisons to the early days when exporting crypto was similarly restricted under munitions laws. That era was similarly full of calls to ban or regulate or backdoor encryption, saying that only terrorists or evildoers had need of such "military-grade encryption." Putting aside the specifics of the gun control/rights question (if such a thing is possible), it's downright refreshing to see this guy's attitude. It's reminiscent of some of the earlier, more libertarian hacker ethos, of being focused on being able to do something and fighting hard against authority figures wanting (justifiably or no) to step in to suppress it. With the growth of the SV tech industry, it seems a lot of that fire has been stomped out.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
Why on Earth would we want to blindly cultivate that attitude? Sometimes authority figures overreach, but plenty of laws exist for good reason. We wouldn't look at someone trying to make it easier to distribute child pornography and say "putting aside the specifics of the child pornography question, it's refreshing to see this guy's attitude." The outcomes of our actions matter. Fighting for something unethical against authority figures who justifiably want to suppress it isn't praiseworthy, it's shameful.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Guns can be used for good, and they can be used for bad - exactly the same as cryptography. Child porn is something that relies exclusively on exploiting people who cannot in any way consent to the actions involved. It's in no way comparable. The conversation beyond this depends on your view of the role of government, and opinions there vary. I see the role of the government as maximizing freedom and liberty for people to live and prosper (or fail) in accordance with their own actions. Banning items which the vast majority are completely capable of handling responsibly because of a tiny minuscule of abusers is not something that I think the government should ever do. And really the fundamental problem is not guns, it's people wanting to hurt other people. London is a good example of this issue. As the demographics and state of that city have changed, their crime and murder rates have soared. Even with extremely strict gun control, they managed to briefly surpass New York City in murders. This has now led their government to begin to implement, literally, "knife control" along with "acid control" given a rise in people spraying others with things such as drain cleaner, as a weapon. And when the perpetrators start killing people with steel rods, will we then move to try to ban weights? If people want to kill or hurt each other, they're going to find a way. Looking at the way is missing the actual problem - which is the people that want to kill or hurt other people.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    With regard to the "fundamental issue", number of guns is extremely highly correlated with a high murder rate [1]. General crime rate, on the other hand, is not [2]; London's brief passage of New York in murder rate belies this. More generally, though, OP's statement was explicitly made without regard to whether gun control was right or wrong. It supported standing up to authority figures in the abstract, which is why I used child pornography as an example of something authority figures are (uncontroversially) generally regarded as right in suppressing. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot... [2] https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      He stated literally that the action was 'reminiscent of the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos'. You are straw manning his comment. As for the issue, do you really think news articles are reasonable sources on an issue like this? This [1] is a list of countries by intentional homicide rates. This [2] is a list of countries by gun ownership rates. Here's a sampling of your "extremely high correlation." ------ Top 5 Countries by Gun Ownership -- Intentional Homicide Ranking (lower means more homicides) 1. USA -- 90 2. Serbia -- 170 3. Yemen -- 77 4. Cyprus -- 179 5. Saudi Arabia -- 166 ------ Top 5 countries by Intentional Homicide Ranking -- Gun Ownership Ranking (lower means more guns) 1. El Salvador -- 92 2. Honduras -- 90 3. Venezuela -- 60 4. US Virgin Islands -- unranked 5. Jamaica -- 73 ------ The numbers get even sillier if you do the top 20. You have to remember that some of the gun heaviest nations in the world include Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, etc.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        The full sentence you quoted, and the preceding one: > Putting aside the specifics of the gun control/rights question (if such a thing is possible), it's downright refreshing to see this guy's attitude. It's reminiscent of some of the earlier, more libertarian hacker ethos, of being focused on being able to do something and fighting hard against authority figures wanting (justifiably or no) to step in to suppress it. i.e. it's "refreshing" to see someone fighting against authority figures, whether or not those authority figures are justified. I'm not straw manning his comment; I simply disagree that the "earlier hacker ethos" he describes is something to be revered, and I've explained why. You are cherry-picking the data in your charts to support your conclusion. The US Virgin Islands, for example, has barely 100,000 people; the US has 320,000,000. Just 4 gun homicides per year there would vastly exceed the US's gun homicide rate.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Why on Earth would we want to blindly cultivate that attitude? Sometimes authority figures overreach, but plenty of laws exist for good reason. We wouldn't look at someone trying to make it easier to distribute child pornography and say "putting aside the specifics of the child pornography question, it's refreshing to see this guy's attitude." The outcomes of our actions matter. Fighting for something unethical against authority figures who justifiably want to suppress it isn't praiseworthy, it's shameful.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Guns can be used for good, and they can be used for bad - exactly the same as cryptography. Child porn is something that relies exclusively on exploiting people who cannot in any way consent to the actions involved. It's in no way comparable. The conversation beyond this depends on your view of the role of government, and opinions there vary. I see the role of the government as maximizing freedom and liberty for people to live and prosper (or fail) in accordance with their own actions. Banning items which the vast majority are completely capable of handling responsibly because of a tiny minuscule of abusers is not something that I think the government should ever do. And really the fundamental problem is not guns, it's people wanting to hurt other people. London is a good example of this issue. As the demographics and state of that city have changed, their crime and murder rates have soared. Even with extremely strict gun control, they managed to briefly surpass New York City in murders. This has now led their government to begin to implement, literally, "knife control" along with "acid control" given a rise in people spraying others with things such as drain cleaner, as a weapon. And when the perpetrators start killing people with steel rods, will we then move to try to ban weights? If people want to kill or hurt each other, they're going to find a way. Looking at the way is missing the actual problem - which is the people that want to kill or hurt other people.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  With regard to the "fundamental issue", number of guns is extremely highly correlated with a high murder rate [1]. General crime rate, on the other hand, is not [2]; London's brief passage of New York in murder rate belies this. More generally, though, OP's statement was explicitly made without regard to whether gun control was right or wrong. It supported standing up to authority figures in the abstract, which is why I used child pornography as an example of something authority figures are (uncontroversially) generally regarded as right in suppressing. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot... [2] https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    He stated literally that the action was 'reminiscent of the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos'. You are straw manning his comment. As for the issue, do you really think news articles are reasonable sources on an issue like this? This [1] is a list of countries by intentional homicide rates. This [2] is a list of countries by gun ownership rates. Here's a sampling of your "extremely high correlation." ------ Top 5 Countries by Gun Ownership -- Intentional Homicide Ranking (lower means more homicides) 1. USA -- 90 2. Serbia -- 170 3. Yemen -- 77 4. Cyprus -- 179 5. Saudi Arabia -- 166 ------ Top 5 countries by Intentional Homicide Ranking -- Gun Ownership Ranking (lower means more guns) 1. El Salvador -- 92 2. Honduras -- 90 3. Venezuela -- 60 4. US Virgin Islands -- unranked 5. Jamaica -- 73 ------ The numbers get even sillier if you do the top 20. You have to remember that some of the gun heaviest nations in the world include Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, etc.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      The full sentence you quoted, and the preceding one: > Putting aside the specifics of the gun control/rights question (if such a thing is possible), it's downright refreshing to see this guy's attitude. It's reminiscent of some of the earlier, more libertarian hacker ethos, of being focused on being able to do something and fighting hard against authority figures wanting (justifiably or no) to step in to suppress it. i.e. it's "refreshing" to see someone fighting against authority figures, whether or not those authority figures are justified. I'm not straw manning his comment; I simply disagree that the "earlier hacker ethos" he describes is something to be revered, and I've explained why. You are cherry-picking the data in your charts to support your conclusion. The US Virgin Islands, for example, has barely 100,000 people; the US has 320,000,000. Just 4 gun homicides per year there would vastly exceed the US's gun homicide rate.