5 ms·

Look, same applies for example to 2nd amendment. But people find it plausible and vote for more gun control.

by coolspot 7y ago

elbrian 7y ago
Not even close to the same thing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 1000units 7y ago
  It's pretty close. For a while crypto was classified as munition and placed under very strict export control in the United States.
  - geggam 7y ago
    When did that change ?
    - 1000units 7y ago
      http://cr.yp.to/export/status.html http://cr.yp.to/export/status.html
  - 1000units 7y ago
    It's amusing to watch the score on this comment go up and down without any new comments. The similarity between gun control and crypto control is plainly strong. If you like wide availability of strong crypto but not personal ownership of firearms, consider investing some energy into figuring out why (fear of the unfamiliar, fear of others, low testosterone, strong fascist or communist leanings, desire to disenfranchise minorities, etc). I am open for questions or remarks and here to help.
regularfry 7y ago
Because a gun is a physical object, whereas a vulnerability is information.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Why would that difference matter to coolspot's argument?
  - regularfry 7y ago
    Because of the economics of distribution. Information gets distributed by duplication, whereas physical objects get distributed by transfer. That makes control of distribution of physical objects more plausible, because the number of instances you need control over is limited by physical constraints. Note: more plausible. You can easily point to examples where physical object distribution control has failed, and where information distribution control has succeeded (Prohibition and video DRM are the examples which most obviously spring to mind), but those cases are the extremes.
atemerev 7y ago
This is why the 2nd amendment is still there, and will remain there.
cannonedhamster 7y ago
Whether I agree with you or not here's the difference. Stricter enforcement of who gets a firearm is not the same thing as putting a vulnerability into every firearm that allows police officers to cause the weapon to backfire into the legally purchased firearm owner's face. Breaking crypto literally makes it dangerous to the people who use it. I'd be opposed to remote police controls on firearms that caused them to fail as well. It's an unnecessary danger that circumvents the purpose of the device.
EnFinlay 7y ago
I want to make sure that I understand your analogy. - The right to secure encryption is like the right to bear arms - Government mandated weakened encryption are like gun control - The victims of weak encryption (stolen data for example) are similar to innocents harmed by gun control? (I'm not sure on this one, please correct me if I'm wrong). - Saying weak encryption is bad is like saying gun control is bad I'm not trying to straw man you, if that's not what you mean, please correct me. Also, I completely disagree.

Look, same applies for example to 2nd amendment. But people find it plausible and vote for more gun control.

elbrian 7y ago

Not even close to the same thing.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
1000units 7y ago
It's pretty close. For a while crypto was classified as munition and placed under very strict export control in the United States.
- geggam 7y ago
  When did that change ?
  - 1000units 7y ago
    http://cr.yp.to/export/status.html http://cr.yp.to/export/status.html
- 1000units 7y ago
  It's amusing to watch the score on this comment go up and down without any new comments. The similarity between gun control and crypto control is plainly strong. If you like wide availability of strong crypto but not personal ownership of firearms, consider investing some energy into figuring out why (fear of the unfamiliar, fear of others, low testosterone, strong fascist or communist leanings, desire to disenfranchise minorities, etc). I am open for questions or remarks and here to help.

regularfry 7y ago

Because a gun is a physical object, whereas a vulnerability is information.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Why would that difference matter to coolspot's argument?
- regularfry 7y ago
  Because of the economics of distribution. Information gets distributed by duplication, whereas physical objects get distributed by transfer. That makes control of distribution of physical objects more plausible, because the number of instances you need control over is limited by physical constraints. Note: more plausible. You can easily point to examples where physical object distribution control has failed, and where information distribution control has succeeded (Prohibition and video DRM are the examples which most obviously spring to mind), but those cases are the extremes.

atemerev 7y ago

This is why the 2nd amendment is still there, and will remain there.

cannonedhamster 7y ago

Whether I agree with you or not here's the difference. Stricter enforcement of who gets a firearm is not the same thing as putting a vulnerability into every firearm that allows police officers to cause the weapon to backfire into the legally purchased firearm owner's face. Breaking crypto literally makes it dangerous to the people who use it. I'd be opposed to remote police controls on firearms that caused them to fail as well. It's an unnecessary danger that circumvents the purpose of the device.

EnFinlay 7y ago

I want to make sure that I understand your analogy. - The right to secure encryption is like the right to bear arms - Government mandated weakened encryption are like gun control - The victims of weak encryption (stolen data for example) are similar to innocents harmed by gun control? (I'm not sure on this one, please correct me if I'm wrong). - Saying weak encryption is bad is like saying gun control is bad I'm not trying to straw man you, if that's not what you mean, please correct me. Also, I completely disagree.