4 ms·

I sympathize with your position but I think we need to imagine the counter argument the state would make. That argument would be "you don't understand the deter

I sympathize with your position but I think we need to imagine the counter argument the state would make. That argument would be "you don't understand the determination of the state. If you are correct and the threat exists in basic arithmatic and if we determine the threat is too great, we outlaw basic arithmatic. That is the level the state will go to." See O'Brien's speech in concerning "if we determine that 1+1 equals 3, we will make 1+1 equal 3", etc. IE, yes, it's impossible but that still doesn't mean they keep trying harder and harder and more and more destructively.

ohazi 7y ago
You're right of course, but theory and practice look very different. The "I don't care how cryptography works, why can't we just have a backdoor?" crowd is imagining that a magical piece of "common sense" legislation is capable of solving this problem. Yes, they can pass something, but it isn't going to work. Because two days after it passes, they'll have courts full of obstinate people who refuse to provide keys for their homebrew encrypted messaging systems. Sure, you can jail them indefinitely, but that just highlights how obviously unsolved the problem remains.
- karmelapple 7y ago
  Why does jailing someone for breaking the law show how unsolved a problem is? Marijuana use is something thousands (millions?) of people have had jail time or other significant repercussions that have negatively impacted their life. If encryption is outlawed, I see no reason why jails wouldn’t fill up if people started wrapping their own backdoor-less crypto around whatever else is used.
  - ohazi 7y ago
    Jailing someone for refusing to reveal a secret doesn't cause that secret to be revealed. What is the problem they're trying to solve? They claim to want a "reveal secrets" button, but for any determined person or for any secret of consequence, the button won't work. Yes, jails will fill up, war-on-drugs style, but my argument is that filling up jails isn't a good goal given what they claim they wait. So my only conclusion is that they're either lying about what they want, or they're idiots. Both seem plausible.
feanaro 7y ago
Perhaps this is a signal that such a state needs to be deconstructed itself.

ohazi 7y ago

You're right of course, but theory and practice look very different. The "I don't care how cryptography works, why can't we just have a backdoor?" crowd is imagining that a magical piece of "common sense" legislation is capable of solving this problem. Yes, they can pass something, but it isn't going to work. Because two days after it passes, they'll have courts full of obstinate people who refuse to provide keys for their homebrew encrypted messaging systems. Sure, you can jail them indefinitely, but that just highlights how obviously unsolved the problem remains.

karmelapple 7y ago
Why does jailing someone for breaking the law show how unsolved a problem is? Marijuana use is something thousands (millions?) of people have had jail time or other significant repercussions that have negatively impacted their life. If encryption is outlawed, I see no reason why jails wouldn’t fill up if people started wrapping their own backdoor-less crypto around whatever else is used.
- ohazi 7y ago
  Jailing someone for refusing to reveal a secret doesn't cause that secret to be revealed. What is the problem they're trying to solve? They claim to want a "reveal secrets" button, but for any determined person or for any secret of consequence, the button won't work. Yes, jails will fill up, war-on-drugs style, but my argument is that filling up jails isn't a good goal given what they claim they wait. So my only conclusion is that they're either lying about what they want, or they're idiots. Both seem plausible.

feanaro 7y ago

Perhaps this is a signal that such a state needs to be deconstructed itself.