3 ms·

It is illegal to compel speech in the United States. Forcing specific software implementations to cripple-ware the product is compelled speech. Full stop.

andyv 7y ago
Yes-- That's why they want the big platforms and chat apps to voluntarily put backdoors in their cryptography.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  No!! To that I say fuck off and freedom is more important. We must not compromise on this.
JadeNB 7y ago
> Forcing specific software implementations to cripple-ware the product is compelled speech. How is it so, in a way that complying with other warrants isn't? (I'm very much not sympathetic to the government's assertion of its rights here, but I'm not yet convinced by this argument against it.)
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Fair question. Warrants are mostly pertaining to searches as I understand it. I don’t think there is instances of warrants in the US that has resulted in compelled speech? To be clear gag orders and injunctions don’t count as compelled speech. That’s an order of absence of speech.
DreamSpinner 7y ago
I'm not from the USA - however most communication software implementation are commercial systems - and don't have the same free speech constraints. There's already ample historic precedence for requiring suppliers of goods and services to include side door access for law enforcement. CALEA comes to mind - it requires communications system providers to include third party listening capabilities. There are probably (not a lawyer) arguments that could be made that software is speech - and the difference between an "Information Service" vs "Communication Service". Also, I do wonder how OSS communications software (XMMP etc) might differ under some aspects against commercial software - like Cisco Jabber (which is also XMMP). Or OSS software written by a private company/startup. Or someone wanting to move their hobby OSS software into a startup. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...

andyv 7y ago

Yes-- That's why they want the big platforms and chat apps to voluntarily put backdoors in their cryptography.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
No!! To that I say fuck off and freedom is more important. We must not compromise on this.

JadeNB 7y ago

> Forcing specific software implementations to cripple-ware the product is compelled speech. How is it so, in a way that complying with other warrants isn't? (I'm very much not sympathetic to the government's assertion of its rights here, but I'm not yet convinced by this argument against it.)

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Fair question. Warrants are mostly pertaining to searches as I understand it. I don’t think there is instances of warrants in the US that has resulted in compelled speech? To be clear gag orders and injunctions don’t count as compelled speech. That’s an order of absence of speech.

DreamSpinner 7y ago

I'm not from the USA - however most communication software implementation are commercial systems - and don't have the same free speech constraints. There's already ample historic precedence for requiring suppliers of goods and services to include side door access for law enforcement. CALEA comes to mind - it requires communications system providers to include third party listening capabilities. There are probably (not a lawyer) arguments that could be made that software is speech - and the difference between an "Information Service" vs "Communication Service". Also, I do wonder how OSS communications software (XMMP etc) might differ under some aspects against commercial software - like Cisco Jabber (which is also XMMP). Or OSS software written by a private company/startup. Or someone wanting to move their hobby OSS software into a startup. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...