5 ms·

I'm surprised that Americans aren't pushing to make private and secure communication a constitutional right. Will it make it harder for law enforcement to go af

I'm surprised that Americans aren't pushing to make private and secure communication a constitutional right. Will it make it harder for law enforcement to go after "bad guys"? Yes. Just as the second, fourth, and fifth amendments do today.

gizmo686 7y ago
The US classifies encryption as a munition. I am genuinly suprised there hasn't been a push to get it covered under the second amendment.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  "Sir, you're going to need an ID, a fingerprint card, and approval from the FBI before you can download that browser."
- bitwize 7y ago
  Crypto is munitions for export purposes, I doubt you can get a ruling that it qualifies for 2A protection. The law is like that. The law can classify a thing as one thing for one purpose, and another thing for another purpose. If they want to ban crypto, they could classify it as a Schedule I drug and it'd make about as much sense as classifying it as a munition.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  2A isn't upheld any more than 4A. States will just require a license for crypto and make it "may-issue". RSA will be classified an "assault algorithm" and banned in California. You'll have to pay a $200 tax stamp for each key, message capacity will be limited to 10 characters, and if your ex-wife claims you hit her then the sheriff can confiscate your hard drives until you convince a judge you didn't.
bluGill 7y ago
The 4th amendment already say that. Papers and effects cleanly expand to communication in all forms even those not imagined today. Courts say otherwise sometimes, but they have to use twisted, convoluted reasoning that doesn't really stand up to the written letter of the constitution. Given that nothing more we can do in the constitution is immune from that either so what is the point of another amendment?
- UncleMeat 7y ago
  The 4th amendment grants access if a court signs a warrant. The unique challenge of encrypted communications is that there is no way to access encrypted data without a person giving up their key.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    You're correct to identify "giving up the key" as the important step. Furthermore, 4A is very clear that should only happen "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The state can't cheat by pretending it has all of this for the entire populace ahead of time. The literal text of the Constitution makes key escrow impossible.
    - gowld 7y ago
      LE doesn't need a key if they can just break the door down. So all that's needed is a key escrow system set up to broadcast when a key is accessed, so unauthorized access can be prosecuted.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        The "key escrow system" contains no keys, because only a chump would give up her or his key before she or he has to give it up. As addressed above, 4A specifies very particular circumstances for that, circumstances which do not apply to most citizens.

gizmo686 7y ago

The US classifies encryption as a munition. I am genuinly suprised there hasn't been a push to get it covered under the second amendment.

vorpalhex 7y ago
"Sir, you're going to need an ID, a fingerprint card, and approval from the FBI before you can download that browser."
bitwize 7y ago
Crypto is munitions for export purposes, I doubt you can get a ruling that it qualifies for 2A protection. The law is like that. The law can classify a thing as one thing for one purpose, and another thing for another purpose. If they want to ban crypto, they could classify it as a Schedule I drug and it'd make about as much sense as classifying it as a munition.
homonculus1 7y ago
2A isn't upheld any more than 4A. States will just require a license for crypto and make it "may-issue". RSA will be classified an "assault algorithm" and banned in California. You'll have to pay a $200 tax stamp for each key, message capacity will be limited to 10 characters, and if your ex-wife claims you hit her then the sheriff can confiscate your hard drives until you convince a judge you didn't.

bluGill 7y ago

The 4th amendment already say that. Papers and effects cleanly expand to communication in all forms even those not imagined today. Courts say otherwise sometimes, but they have to use twisted, convoluted reasoning that doesn't really stand up to the written letter of the constitution. Given that nothing more we can do in the constitution is immune from that either so what is the point of another amendment?

UncleMeat 7y ago
The 4th amendment grants access if a court signs a warrant. The unique challenge of encrypted communications is that there is no way to access encrypted data without a person giving up their key.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  You're correct to identify "giving up the key" as the important step. Furthermore, 4A is very clear that should only happen "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The state can't cheat by pretending it has all of this for the entire populace ahead of time. The literal text of the Constitution makes key escrow impossible.
  - gowld 7y ago
    LE doesn't need a key if they can just break the door down. So all that's needed is a key escrow system set up to broadcast when a key is accessed, so unauthorized access can be prosecuted.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      The "key escrow system" contains no keys, because only a chump would give up her or his key before she or he has to give it up. As addressed above, 4A specifies very particular circumstances for that, circumstances which do not apply to most citizens.