4 ms·

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

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.
  - rcoveson 7y ago
    Access to communications with a warrant is fine; they already have that right. That doesn't solve the encryption problem. How do you propose solving it? This problem has only one real solution. All communications must be unencrypted or encrypted using an approved encryption scheme and using keys that the government has access to. The first problem is that it's impossible to tell unencrypted data in a format that you don't recognize from illegal encrypted data. So perhaps you have to add laws restricting the types of unencrypted data that can be sent: JPEGs, MPEGs, UTF-8 text, and million more. Of course, the bad guys are still just encoding their messages in images at this point, but this is more about security theater than security, so we'll continue. As for the encrypted communications, you have to do more than just check that you can decrypt them. In order to confirm that people aren't just wrapping strong encryption inside the backdoored encryption, you have to actually decrypt everything that is sent and confirm that it meets the plain-text standards. This would require an absurd amount of resources. At some point, you have to just give up and accept that there is only one solution: General purpose computers must be outlawed. Every device capable of computing must be manufactured under government supervision, and run government approved software. Writing software must become as heavily regulated as manufacturing weapons. You _still_ don't catch any bad guys this way; they're content to encode their communications in creative ways. But you could maybe prevent law abiding citizens from using non-approved encryption techniques like this. What you say about rights is true, but keep in mind that there are many situations where no balance can be struck. Guns are relatively difficult to manufacture. You can't do it with the stuff you have lying around your house, even today. Encryption is a radically different problem. Practically everybody in the country has devices capable of it. Those devices need to do math in order to function, and they need to be programmable in order for many people to do their jobs, and for many others to build open source projects, or do research. From an ethical standpoint I think the guns <-> encryption relationship makes some sense, but from a practical standpoint they couldn't be more different. What policy did you have in mind? I want to hear specifics.

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.
- rcoveson 7y ago
  Access to communications with a warrant is fine; they already have that right. That doesn't solve the encryption problem. How do you propose solving it? This problem has only one real solution. All communications must be unencrypted or encrypted using an approved encryption scheme and using keys that the government has access to. The first problem is that it's impossible to tell unencrypted data in a format that you don't recognize from illegal encrypted data. So perhaps you have to add laws restricting the types of unencrypted data that can be sent: JPEGs, MPEGs, UTF-8 text, and million more. Of course, the bad guys are still just encoding their messages in images at this point, but this is more about security theater than security, so we'll continue. As for the encrypted communications, you have to do more than just check that you can decrypt them. In order to confirm that people aren't just wrapping strong encryption inside the backdoored encryption, you have to actually decrypt everything that is sent and confirm that it meets the plain-text standards. This would require an absurd amount of resources. At some point, you have to just give up and accept that there is only one solution: General purpose computers must be outlawed. Every device capable of computing must be manufactured under government supervision, and run government approved software. Writing software must become as heavily regulated as manufacturing weapons. You _still_ don't catch any bad guys this way; they're content to encode their communications in creative ways. But you could maybe prevent law abiding citizens from using non-approved encryption techniques like this. What you say about rights is true, but keep in mind that there are many situations where no balance can be struck. Guns are relatively difficult to manufacture. You can't do it with the stuff you have lying around your house, even today. Encryption is a radically different problem. Practically everybody in the country has devices capable of it. Those devices need to do math in order to function, and they need to be programmable in order for many people to do their jobs, and for many others to build open source projects, or do research. From an ethical standpoint I think the guns <-> encryption relationship makes some sense, but from a practical standpoint they couldn't be more different. What policy did you have in mind? I want to hear specifics.