4 ms·

Oftentimes systemic crime manifests more as an erosion of trust in institutions and the healthy functioning of a society than as something which impacts individ

Oftentimes systemic crime manifests more as an erosion of trust in institutions and the healthy functioning of a society than as something which impacts individuals in a direct way on a regular basis. For instance, consider Mexican organized crime (cartels). Cartels wield a huge amount of illicit influence and generally make everyone's lives much worse, but most people aren't being kidnapped or confronted by cartels on a daily basis. Their lives are certainly affected by them, but in mostly indirect ways. Cancerous organized crime and its enablement by coerced and voluntary corruption within Government and business represents an existential threat to developed societies. Many of us take for granted our nation's peace and prosperity, in spite of the creeping threat of organized crime and corruption being ever present. Law enforcement not being able to access encrypted data severely limits our ability to prosecute and convict criminals who use these secure communications to conduct their business, and brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer.

rcoveson 7y ago
> Law enforcement not being able to access encrypted data severely limits our ability to prosecute and convict criminals who use these secure communications to conduct their business, and brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer. The impact of organized crime pales in comparison to that of authoritarian regimes. The "creeping threat of social decay" argument gives me chills; it's exactly the slogan I imagine at the head of the movement that finally ends democracy.
- corporate_shi11 7y ago
  And yet, just last year over 100 Mexican politicians were murdered by cartels. The Mexican army itself has lost battles to the cartels as their influence steadily grows. Many municipalities in Mexico defer to the cartels in which true power and influence resides. So while you speculate on some made up authoritarian movement subverting democracy in America, I look on in horror as democracy in Mexico is being subverted in real time by organized crime and the creeping social decay and corruption that comes with it. 100 politicians assassinated in a single year! This is happening right across our border and if not for our robust law enforcement both at the border and throughout the country, it would be much worse here too. That is what I fear, and it is why I don't want criminals to be able to hide behind encryption. Everything good in our society comes from law and order. Without it, there is only chaos and destruction.
  - rcoveson 7y ago
    Mexico has had, for many years, stricter laws regarding gun ownership than America. They also rank extremely poorly in press freedom. I think part of what you're arguing is that freedom to do dangerous stuff (publish newspapers, own weapons, encrypt communications, etc...) causes "chaos and destruction." What convinced you of that causal relationship? I don't see it in your Mexico example. Basically, I'm not sure you've correctly mapped your desired outcomes onto the policies you advocate. The things you're arguing for don't appear to help with the problem that scares you.
    - corporate_shi11 7y ago
      I'm not sure where you gathered that I am against Freedom of the Press and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I am a staunch supporter of them. What I oppose is encryption that renders potentially criminal communication inaccessible to law enforcement. Law enforcement should have the means and the perogative to gain access to these communications.
      - rcoveson 7y ago
        If law enforcement should have a monopoly on encrypted communication, why not a monopoly on guns? Cartels with guns are far scarier than cartels with encryption. If we actually had the power to take either away, we would choose guns, right? So what makes you a staunch supporter of the second amendment? Why does it not apply to encryption? And don’t give a legal answer like “one is protected by the bill of rights and the other isn’t.” I want to hear an ethical reason. The second amendment is about keeping the power to dissent in the hands of the people. Encryption is perfect for that, and as an added bonus it is extremely useful in day to day life. So why are you so content to throw it away, staunch defender of freedom that you claim to be?
        corporate_shi11 7y ago
        I do not law enforcement should have a monopoly, I believe it should have access to communications in the same way it has access to someone's home or personal property: with a search warrant. Thus one has privacy, except in specific circumstances. In the same way, I believe people cannot own specific classes of weaponry, as is the legal case today. Is this a violation of the 2nd amendment? No rights are absolute. So yes it violates some absolutist conception of the Right, but this is necessary and unavoidable. Everything must be balanced. Privacy, the right to bear Arms, free speech, all these are shaped by other interests.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer Doesn't most available data indicate it is moving in the opposite direction and that people's perception are biased by the 24 hour news cycle which leads people to think crime has gotten worse?

rcoveson 7y ago

> Law enforcement not being able to access encrypted data severely limits our ability to prosecute and convict criminals who use these secure communications to conduct their business, and brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer. The impact of organized crime pales in comparison to that of authoritarian regimes. The "creeping threat of social decay" argument gives me chills; it's exactly the slogan I imagine at the head of the movement that finally ends democracy.

corporate_shi11 7y ago
And yet, just last year over 100 Mexican politicians were murdered by cartels. The Mexican army itself has lost battles to the cartels as their influence steadily grows. Many municipalities in Mexico defer to the cartels in which true power and influence resides. So while you speculate on some made up authoritarian movement subverting democracy in America, I look on in horror as democracy in Mexico is being subverted in real time by organized crime and the creeping social decay and corruption that comes with it. 100 politicians assassinated in a single year! This is happening right across our border and if not for our robust law enforcement both at the border and throughout the country, it would be much worse here too. That is what I fear, and it is why I don't want criminals to be able to hide behind encryption. Everything good in our society comes from law and order. Without it, there is only chaos and destruction.
- rcoveson 7y ago
  Mexico has had, for many years, stricter laws regarding gun ownership than America. They also rank extremely poorly in press freedom. I think part of what you're arguing is that freedom to do dangerous stuff (publish newspapers, own weapons, encrypt communications, etc...) causes "chaos and destruction." What convinced you of that causal relationship? I don't see it in your Mexico example. Basically, I'm not sure you've correctly mapped your desired outcomes onto the policies you advocate. The things you're arguing for don't appear to help with the problem that scares you.
  - corporate_shi11 7y ago
    I'm not sure where you gathered that I am against Freedom of the Press and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I am a staunch supporter of them. What I oppose is encryption that renders potentially criminal communication inaccessible to law enforcement. Law enforcement should have the means and the perogative to gain access to these communications.
    - rcoveson 7y ago
      If law enforcement should have a monopoly on encrypted communication, why not a monopoly on guns? Cartels with guns are far scarier than cartels with encryption. If we actually had the power to take either away, we would choose guns, right? So what makes you a staunch supporter of the second amendment? Why does it not apply to encryption? And don’t give a legal answer like “one is protected by the bill of rights and the other isn’t.” I want to hear an ethical reason. The second amendment is about keeping the power to dissent in the hands of the people. Encryption is perfect for that, and as an added bonus it is extremely useful in day to day life. So why are you so content to throw it away, staunch defender of freedom that you claim to be?
      - corporate_shi11 7y ago
        I do not law enforcement should have a monopoly, I believe it should have access to communications in the same way it has access to someone's home or personal property: with a search warrant. Thus one has privacy, except in specific circumstances. In the same way, I believe people cannot own specific classes of weaponry, as is the legal case today. Is this a violation of the 2nd amendment? No rights are absolute. So yes it violates some absolutist conception of the Right, but this is necessary and unavoidable. Everything must be balanced. Privacy, the right to bear Arms, free speech, all these are shaped by other interests.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer Doesn't most available data indicate it is moving in the opposite direction and that people's perception are biased by the 24 hour news cycle which leads people to think crime has gotten worse?