4 ms·

Fortunately, there is a bulwark: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the

by ISL 7y ago

Fortunately, there is a bulwark: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The bulwark defending the bulwark is the population.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Good luck explaining your commits to that munitions grade crypto used by terror cells in the mideast region as "Free Speech". Hope that works out for you. :-( (I'd wager there'll be a few more Snowden types asking for asylum outside the US before this is all over.)
- downrightmike 7y ago
  Already holds up: "The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case). " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    How it worked out last time is no guarantee of how it will work out this time.
    - ralph84 7y ago
      I like the odds in the US better than anywhere else. No other country has a better track record of protecting freedom of speech.
  - sjy 7y ago
    It's worth checking that claim against the Ninth Circuit's decision [1], because the court said: > We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do not hold that all software is expressive. Much of it surely is not ... We hold merely that because the prepublication licensing regime challenged here applies directly to scientific expression, vests boundless discretion in government officials, and lacks adequate procedural safeguards, it constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on speech. [1] https://cr.yp.to/export/1999/0506-order.html https://cr.yp.to/export/1999/0506-order.html
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  If good crypto really boils down to math, and therefore either everyone can be secure or noone, then I'd rather everyone be secure. There are more ways to stop terrorists than wanton collection of communication.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
I wish I shared your optimism.

by ISL 7y ago

bilbo0s 7y ago

Good luck explaining your commits to that munitions grade crypto used by terror cells in the mideast region as "Free Speech". Hope that works out for you. :-( (I'd wager there'll be a few more Snowden types asking for asylum outside the US before this is all over.)

downrightmike 7y ago
Already holds up: "The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case). " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
- pessimizer 7y ago
  How it worked out last time is no guarantee of how it will work out this time.
  - ralph84 7y ago
    I like the odds in the US better than anywhere else. No other country has a better track record of protecting freedom of speech.
- sjy 7y ago
  It's worth checking that claim against the Ninth Circuit's decision [1], because the court said: > We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do not hold that all software is expressive. Much of it surely is not ... We hold merely that because the prepublication licensing regime challenged here applies directly to scientific expression, vests boundless discretion in government officials, and lacks adequate procedural safeguards, it constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on speech. [1] https://cr.yp.to/export/1999/0506-order.html https://cr.yp.to/export/1999/0506-order.html
paulryanrogers 7y ago
If good crypto really boils down to math, and therefore either everyone can be secure or noone, then I'd rather everyone be secure. There are more ways to stop terrorists than wanton collection of communication.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

I wish I shared your optimism.