7 ms·

Just because someone can abuse a thing doesn't make the thing bad, it makes the person who commits the abuse bad. We don't ban cars to fight drunk driving and

by mikece 7y ago

Just because someone can abuse a thing doesn't make the thing bad, it makes the person who commits the abuse bad. We don't ban cars to fight drunk driving and we shouldn't eliminate the spirit of the 4th Amendment to go after child pornographers, terrorists, money launderers and drug dealers. Even with E2E encrypted communications the fact that user A is communicating with user B, when, and for how long is knowable, and that metadata alone can be sufficient to get the warrants necessary to effect legal, invasive searches without disturbing the rights of everyone else.

maxaf 7y ago
American liberals are perfectly fine with wanting to ban guns just because of some bad actors. Why does their defense of E2E encryption somehow cover child abusers? Don’t legal, law-abiding gun owners deserve better than pedophiles?
- tobylane 7y ago
  Guns are directly linked to the actions of those bad actors. A private tunnel of communication is not so directly linked to the actions of child abusers (nor the images they share on these platforms).
  - giantg2 7y ago
    If you use E2E as a means to sell or auction a person against their will, wouldn't that directly link the technology to their illegal action? Also, distributing child porn is itself a crime, separate from the abuse. So you would be directly using E2E in a crime that way. Are you implying that some laws hold less moral or legal value? If so, what are the differentiating factors in that decision?
    - tobylane 7y ago
      (Don’t) Try to use the sole function of a gun on yourself without harming yourself. Now use WhatsApp on yourself and see what happens. Do you do nothing because you have to think up something to write? The act of writing up the auction is the first part of the crime. Even if you don’t go through with selling a human you may or may not have, you may still be charged for having written that message and sharing it somehow.
      - giantg2 7y ago
        I don't see the point you are trying to make. Using the function of a gun on oneself is not a lawful use case, just as selling a human is not a lawful use case for WhatsApp. A more apt comparison using your example of not writing anything to encrypt would be the possession of a firearm compared to the possession of an E2E system. Both have lawful as well as unlawful uses. On the part about writing the message being the first part of the crime and comparing that to committing suicide with a gun, the gun is the means by which the crime was committed, just as the means for the crime of selling the person would have been the medium through which it was transacted - WhatsApp in this case. Perhaps you where trying to explain something else?
  - agensaequivocum 7y ago
    They are both tools that can be used for good or evil.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  I see these comparisons made so, so frequently and it bothers me. Guns are not the same as encryption or cars. Yet they're so often made in apples to apples comparisons that it's mind boggling to me. Weapons are uniquely special in that they are specifically designed to maim and kill. Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war. Arguably, if there was E2E software that was specifically designed to maim and kill it might be received in a similar manner as guns. I'm not saying guns don't have legitimate uses or the right to ownership in the hands of legal, sane owners. You don't think if people started using impaling spike strips for the front of cars that there might be similar discussions about banning said strips? Many who advocate for tighter gun control make exceptions to hunting rifles. Those very clearly have a use other than the death of humans. Could they be abused? Certainly. But tools can be abused all over the place. However when someone takes a weapon, designed for slaughtering, and slaughters with it.. well, can you blame people for questioning the validity of owning these items?
  - giantg2 7y ago
    "Those very clearly have a use other than the death of humans." "Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war." Your two statements above conflict. All types of firearms have been used in war, yet you want to make exceptions for hunting rifles. How do you explain this? Also, how do you differentiate a weapon designed for slaughtering versus a tool as you use both in relation to firearms?
  - papermachete 7y ago
    They're not designed to maim or kill, just to accelerate a piece of mass. Police regularly use beanbags and target shooting is an olympic sport. Designing firearms spans all of STEM and keeps people employed well. If the US government wanted to reduce the lethality of firearms, they would ban calibers, not accessories. Even so, a .22LR olympic pistol is enough to take down a bodybuilder with one critical hit. So olympic shooters could become murderers overnight, or have their weapons stolen. If not, why suspect that average people would instead?
    - mffnbs 7y ago
- gwillz 7y ago
  I love this devil's advocation. I certainly don't agree with it but it makes a great conversation. Stir that pot.
  - sergioj97 7y ago
    > I certainly don't agree with it but it makes a great conversation. Does it though? It seems like a fallacious comparation for reasons that other comments have already explained. And as such, it makes a confuse, meaningless conversation.
    - gwillz 7y ago
      Yeah I guess that's fair. It's a fairly shallow attempt to evoke a response. At the same time, I still enjoy it because it did create a lot of responses. I find discussions these days end up being an echo chamber of the same opinion. Something different and something to argue against is more interest than everyone just confirming each other.
- mikece 7y ago
  Guns can be controlled without eliminating them from the hands of the public. E2E encryption cannot be "controlled" without undermining it's nature and purpose.
  - dx87 7y ago
    What if the government decided that you can use E2E encryption, but only using encryption protocols they are capable of cracking? Like, you could only use DES for your E2E encryption. That'd be similar to how gun control is now; you're allowed to have them, but only if the government approves them. If you need stronger than DES, you have to send in an application to the federal government, just like people who want automatic weapons or suppressors.

by mikece 7y ago

maxaf 7y ago

American liberals are perfectly fine with wanting to ban guns just because of some bad actors. Why does their defense of E2E encryption somehow cover child abusers? Don’t legal, law-abiding gun owners deserve better than pedophiles?

tobylane 7y ago
Guns are directly linked to the actions of those bad actors. A private tunnel of communication is not so directly linked to the actions of child abusers (nor the images they share on these platforms).
- giantg2 7y ago
  If you use E2E as a means to sell or auction a person against their will, wouldn't that directly link the technology to their illegal action? Also, distributing child porn is itself a crime, separate from the abuse. So you would be directly using E2E in a crime that way. Are you implying that some laws hold less moral or legal value? If so, what are the differentiating factors in that decision?
  - tobylane 7y ago
    (Don’t) Try to use the sole function of a gun on yourself without harming yourself. Now use WhatsApp on yourself and see what happens. Do you do nothing because you have to think up something to write? The act of writing up the auction is the first part of the crime. Even if you don’t go through with selling a human you may or may not have, you may still be charged for having written that message and sharing it somehow.
    - giantg2 7y ago
      I don't see the point you are trying to make. Using the function of a gun on oneself is not a lawful use case, just as selling a human is not a lawful use case for WhatsApp. A more apt comparison using your example of not writing anything to encrypt would be the possession of a firearm compared to the possession of an E2E system. Both have lawful as well as unlawful uses. On the part about writing the message being the first part of the crime and comparing that to committing suicide with a gun, the gun is the means by which the crime was committed, just as the means for the crime of selling the person would have been the medium through which it was transacted - WhatsApp in this case. Perhaps you where trying to explain something else?
- agensaequivocum 7y ago
  They are both tools that can be used for good or evil.
asdkhadsj 7y ago
I see these comparisons made so, so frequently and it bothers me. Guns are not the same as encryption or cars. Yet they're so often made in apples to apples comparisons that it's mind boggling to me. Weapons are uniquely special in that they are specifically designed to maim and kill. Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war. Arguably, if there was E2E software that was specifically designed to maim and kill it might be received in a similar manner as guns. I'm not saying guns don't have legitimate uses or the right to ownership in the hands of legal, sane owners. You don't think if people started using impaling spike strips for the front of cars that there might be similar discussions about banning said strips? Many who advocate for tighter gun control make exceptions to hunting rifles. Those very clearly have a use other than the death of humans. Could they be abused? Certainly. But tools can be abused all over the place. However when someone takes a weapon, designed for slaughtering, and slaughters with it.. well, can you blame people for questioning the validity of owning these items?
- giantg2 7y ago
  "Those very clearly have a use other than the death of humans." "Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war." Your two statements above conflict. All types of firearms have been used in war, yet you want to make exceptions for hunting rifles. How do you explain this? Also, how do you differentiate a weapon designed for slaughtering versus a tool as you use both in relation to firearms?
- papermachete 7y ago
  They're not designed to maim or kill, just to accelerate a piece of mass. Police regularly use beanbags and target shooting is an olympic sport. Designing firearms spans all of STEM and keeps people employed well. If the US government wanted to reduce the lethality of firearms, they would ban calibers, not accessories. Even so, a .22LR olympic pistol is enough to take down a bodybuilder with one critical hit. So olympic shooters could become murderers overnight, or have their weapons stolen. If not, why suspect that average people would instead?
  - mffnbs 7y ago
gwillz 7y ago
I love this devil's advocation. I certainly don't agree with it but it makes a great conversation. Stir that pot.
- sergioj97 7y ago
  > I certainly don't agree with it but it makes a great conversation. Does it though? It seems like a fallacious comparation for reasons that other comments have already explained. And as such, it makes a confuse, meaningless conversation.
  - gwillz 7y ago
    Yeah I guess that's fair. It's a fairly shallow attempt to evoke a response. At the same time, I still enjoy it because it did create a lot of responses. I find discussions these days end up being an echo chamber of the same opinion. Something different and something to argue against is more interest than everyone just confirming each other.
mikece 7y ago
Guns can be controlled without eliminating them from the hands of the public. E2E encryption cannot be "controlled" without undermining it's nature and purpose.
- dx87 7y ago
  What if the government decided that you can use E2E encryption, but only using encryption protocols they are capable of cracking? Like, you could only use DES for your E2E encryption. That'd be similar to how gun control is now; you're allowed to have them, but only if the government approves them. If you need stronger than DES, you have to send in an application to the federal government, just like people who want automatic weapons or suppressors.