14 ms·

> Security alliance worries encrypted messaging apps can be used by bad actors Same goes for kitchen knives. I don't hear them call for banning those, or have

> Security alliance worries encrypted messaging apps can be used by bad actors Same goes for kitchen knives. I don't hear them call for banning those, or have every sale of one tracked and monitored (which would only illustrate the lunacy of their "argument" even more).

OwlsParlay 6y ago
If some politicians thought they could get away with it, they would.
mmm_grayons 6y ago
I mean, why do you think they've been trying to progressively restrict guns for years?
- Lev1a 6y ago
  Firearms make it easy/way easier to kill/seriously injure * a large number of people * from a distance * with basically no effort With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring * even a low number of people (IF even more than one) * from arm's reach * with large physical effort. Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.) is then quite obvious.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    That doesn't matter. How many people does something have to be able to kill before being banned? The truck attack in France was deadlier than any mass shooting in America. There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't justify restricting liberty. All guns ought to be legal.
    - corobo 6y ago
      Ok but how about if you combine all truck attacks vs all shootouts Not like Americans can do anything with the guns. You gonna stop what's happening right now with your pistol? Go on then. Literally the time to shine that liberty. You've got a guy threatening to be Hitler 2.0 (hi Godwin!) and making moves towards that.. nothing Oh they'd just make it worse? Maybe you shouldn't have them so easily accessible then https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20Prevent%20This,%E2%80%99%20Says%20Only%20Nation%20Where%20This%20Regularly%20Happens https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20P...
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        I'd argue a fairer metric would probably be to compare gun deaths to car deaths; nearly twice as many people died to cars in 2019 [0] [1]. I definitely don't think Trump will be "Hitler 2.0". He probably won't even be in office after this election. Again, however, my primary argument is normative and values-based. I'm not arguing that we only have gun rights because they don't kill x number of people. Even if a hundred thousand people were killed by mass shootings I wouldn't support gun restrictions. We don't restrict people's liberties because others break the law. The thing most gun grabbers miss and that most gun rights proponents won't say is that our primary value is liberty not saving more lives. [0]: https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ [1]: https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estim...
        umvi 6y ago
        Well you're in a dying breed it seems. These days liberty is not worth more than death. In other words, it's increasingly popular to trade some liberty in exchange for saving lives. Take away people's gun liberty, take away people's liberty to refuse wearing a mask, take away people's liberty to say hateful/hurtful things to the vulnerable on social media and you can save thousands, even tens of thousands of lives per year. The problem with liberty is that some % of people (bad actors) abuse it to cause harm to others
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - centimeter 6y ago
    Fewer than 200 people die every year in the US (~1 in 1,500,000) from rifle homicides, fewer than the number of people who die from kicks and punches or blunt objects, and yet rifle platforms such as the AR-15 are one of the most popular targets of anti-gun lawmakers and are heavily regulated in many states. Saving lives is not a rational explanation for the political strategy of anti-gun activists. If it were, I would be more willing to consider what they had to say. Based on what they do rather than what they say, I can only conclude that their motivations have nothing to do with rationally increasing safety, and are more related to mindless irrational fear, disarming people for political reasons, and simply pandering to people who have also done no real research.
    - deathhand 6y ago
      The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". The retort is then usually the Benjamin Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Finally it ends with 'do you trust current authority?' and depending upon the social circle you will get various answers.
      - syshum 6y ago
        The entire foundation of the US system of government is built on distrust of all forms or authority. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." The US was setup to protect individuals from both government and the majority. Sadly through out history we have lost respect for this separation of powers resulting is elimination of many checks and balances that where builtin to the system Short answer... No I do not trust any government, or authority. Nobody should
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". Cough cars, police officers, food that doesn't taste like grass and cardboard, cough, cough.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Actually here in the UK the government did briefly consider banning all knives with points. I know right? Welcome to the nanny state. (from 2005 but it was brought up again last year...) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm#:~:text=%22Offensive%20weapons%20are%20defined%20as,possessing%20them%20to%20do%20so.&text=%22The%20manufacture%2C%20sale%20and%20importation,flick%20knives%20and%20gravity%20knives.%22 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm#:~:text=%22Off...
- unishark 6y ago
  Sort of the government version of Poe's law.
- noir_lord 6y ago
  I love the logic (or lack) with things like that. Are they also going to ban files and bar stock because give me those and you can make something utterly lethal.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I always though a screwdriver would be more effective for stabbing people and much less conspicuous...
  - ben_w 6y ago
    A police officer came to my school and told the assembled students that sharpened rulers counted as knives. (I never bothered checking if he was right or making it up).
    - hansvm 6y ago
      A strict reading of the law in many US cities classifies nerf and airsoft guns as deadly weapons regardless of the velocities involved. I don't think that gets applied often (ever?), but a few people have gotten deadly weapon charges for using BB guns, so the line isn't too far away. With that as the backdrop I wouldn't be surprised at sharpened rulers being classified as knives (especially as pertaining to laws regarding weapons near schools). I might be off base here, but I think those kinds of bogus laws are usually applied selectively in situations where any reasonable observer would agree that the perpetrator ought to be charged with something, but there isn't anything better to stick them with. The danger of course is that everyone always being guilty of something allows for less desirable forms of selective enforcement (race, gender, journalism, protests, teenagers), intentionally or not.
whydoineedone 6y ago
Kitchen knives and communication are completely different things. Bad actors spreading subversive ideas that could shake the fabric of society and undermine the national security of countries is not the same as being able to carry a knife around in your house. Bad state actors can and do exploit this anonymity.
innocenat 6y ago
You are joking, but it's illegal in Japan to carry a locked-blade knives or folding knives with blade longer than 5.5cm. You need a solid reason to carry those, like if you just buy it from the shop (in the original package), or if you are a chef, etc.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  I can't go to work with a steak knife?
- jowsie 6y ago
  Same in the UK, but the police can also decide you don't have a valid reason for a legal to carry pocket knife, and charge you anyway.
  - woadwarrior01 6y ago
    Likewise in Ireland[1]. [1]: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/section/9/enacted/en/html#zza12y1990s9 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/section/9/ena...
  - jamaicahest 6y ago
    Same in Denmark. Perhaps this is standard in a lot of western countries?
- mstade 6y ago
  Sweden is the same, carrying almost any kind of knife in a public space is generally illegal. There are exceptions, such as construction workers who need to carry knives and other pointy things for work, but generally it's not allowed.
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    Yet people bring knifes to picnics, walks, hikes all the time. "Normal use of pocket knife" is how the police formulates one of the exceptions or carve-outs for legitimate use of a knife in public spaces. There is a lot of leeway there.
the-dude 6y ago
Already happening in several city centres in NL : all knives are forbidden, even if you are a tradesman(?) like carpenters etc.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  How do you cut anything?
umvi 6y ago
Actually a lot of countries do ban knives. And guns. And anything else bad actors might abuse.
- centimeter 6y ago
  “Anything else bad across might abuse” includes things that people can’t possibly delude themselves into thinking it would be rational to outlaw, such as cars and caustic cleaning agents. Of course, shockingly few of these ban-heavy countries, with the exception of the East Asian ones, have considered the much more effective strategy of adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors. Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system) but having fairly lax object laws (knives are mostly fine, guns are relatively loosely regulated) and it works well for them.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    > Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system) Strict? 25% of Switzerland’s population is foreign-born[1], and they are in the Schengen area, so no passport needed to cross the borders. I’ve cycled through at least three, none of which were even marked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#/media/File%3ASwitzerland%2C_permanent_foreign_residents_as_%25_of_total_population%2C_1900-2011.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#/...
    - centimeter 6y ago
      "Strict" doesn't necessarily mean "don't let anyone in"; in this case it means "have a rigorous validation process to ensure you only let in very desirable migrants".
      - ben_w 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Rights_Directive#Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Rights_Directive#S...
nirui 6y ago
"Kitchen knives" went too far to be an example. How about door locks? I still don't get the idea that having a weakened security system could somehow benefit security. Based on many real-life hack stories I've heard, it's usually the "bad actors" who's taking advantage of unsecured apps to attack normal people, this is the very reason why developers are making apps more secure to begin with. Another point is, insecured systems are usually easy to take control of (By injecting malwares payload into the brokenly-encrypted traffic for example), then "bad actors" can turn those systems to a trojan proxy. How does that help if you want to make things safe? Last point: I know this is about big companies encryptions. But really, "Roll Your Own Encryption" is not that bad anymore if all other "secured-encryption" was bugged. And, really, roll your own encryption is not that hard today if your only goal is to annoy the FBI. Real last point: Even if companies such as Google and Facebook did banned encryption, does that also prevents "bad actors" from using real encryption on top of their service? You can even send your nudes to me safely by encrypting it with my public key and publish the encrypted data here (Don't actually do that). The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.
- leppr 6y ago
  > The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure. That's what projects like Maskbook do[1]. The problem with those is that the use of such technology can be detected, and thus the small number of users singled out. You'd need steganography for this principle to work, and AFAIK that's already what paranoid criminals are doing. So in reality making E2E encryption inconvenient only penalizes regular honest people. [1]: https://mask.io/ https://mask.io/
  - nirui 6y ago
    Those user sticks out because system such as Maskbook was not designed to hide the fact that it carries encrypted data. However, a system can be designed to do that with ease. You can encode data in video streams with Fourier transform, you can encode data using English words, you can put encrypted data as JEPG payload etc. "Bad actors" will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from law enforcement, they'll kill the police in a blink if their account balanced out (On the same note, they can also join and control the police from within), let alone to learn to use encryption. It is the normal people who will feel most of the hurt, because after that they don't even have the protection against bad actors.

OwlsParlay 6y ago

If some politicians thought they could get away with it, they would.

mmm_grayons 6y ago

I mean, why do you think they've been trying to progressively restrict guns for years?

Lev1a 6y ago
Firearms make it easy/way easier to kill/seriously injure * a large number of people * from a distance * with basically no effort With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring * even a low number of people (IF even more than one) * from arm's reach * with large physical effort. Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.) is then quite obvious.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  That doesn't matter. How many people does something have to be able to kill before being banned? The truck attack in France was deadlier than any mass shooting in America. There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't justify restricting liberty. All guns ought to be legal.
  - corobo 6y ago
    Ok but how about if you combine all truck attacks vs all shootouts Not like Americans can do anything with the guns. You gonna stop what's happening right now with your pistol? Go on then. Literally the time to shine that liberty. You've got a guy threatening to be Hitler 2.0 (hi Godwin!) and making moves towards that.. nothing Oh they'd just make it worse? Maybe you shouldn't have them so easily accessible then https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20Prevent%20This,%E2%80%99%20Says%20Only%20Nation%20Where%20This%20Regularly%20Happens https://www.theonion.com/search?q=%E2%80%98No%20Way%20To%20P...
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      I'd argue a fairer metric would probably be to compare gun deaths to car deaths; nearly twice as many people died to cars in 2019 [0] [1]. I definitely don't think Trump will be "Hitler 2.0". He probably won't even be in office after this election. Again, however, my primary argument is normative and values-based. I'm not arguing that we only have gun rights because they don't kill x number of people. Even if a hundred thousand people were killed by mass shootings I wouldn't support gun restrictions. We don't restrict people's liberties because others break the law. The thing most gun grabbers miss and that most gun rights proponents won't say is that our primary value is liberty not saving more lives. [0]: https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/ [1]: https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estimates https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatality-estim...
      - umvi 6y ago
        Well you're in a dying breed it seems. These days liberty is not worth more than death. In other words, it's increasingly popular to trade some liberty in exchange for saving lives. Take away people's gun liberty, take away people's liberty to refuse wearing a mask, take away people's liberty to say hateful/hurtful things to the vulnerable on social media and you can save thousands, even tens of thousands of lives per year. The problem with liberty is that some % of people (bad actors) abuse it to cause harm to others
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- centimeter 6y ago
  Fewer than 200 people die every year in the US (~1 in 1,500,000) from rifle homicides, fewer than the number of people who die from kicks and punches or blunt objects, and yet rifle platforms such as the AR-15 are one of the most popular targets of anti-gun lawmakers and are heavily regulated in many states. Saving lives is not a rational explanation for the political strategy of anti-gun activists. If it were, I would be more willing to consider what they had to say. Based on what they do rather than what they say, I can only conclude that their motivations have nothing to do with rationally increasing safety, and are more related to mindless irrational fear, disarming people for political reasons, and simply pandering to people who have also done no real research.
  - deathhand 6y ago
    The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". The retort is then usually the Benjamin Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Finally it ends with 'do you trust current authority?' and depending upon the social circle you will get various answers.
    - syshum 6y ago
      The entire foundation of the US system of government is built on distrust of all forms or authority. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." The US was setup to protect individuals from both government and the majority. Sadly through out history we have lost respect for this separation of powers resulting is elimination of many checks and balances that where builtin to the system Short answer... No I do not trust any government, or authority. Nobody should
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > The opponents to your argument would state "one life is too many". Cough cars, police officers, food that doesn't taste like grass and cardboard, cough, cough.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Actually here in the UK the government did briefly consider banning all knives with points. I know right? Welcome to the nanny state. (from 2005 but it was brought up again last year...) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm#:~:text=%22Offensive%20weapons%20are%20defined%20as,possessing%20them%20to%20do%20so.&text=%22The%20manufacture%2C%20sale%20and%20importation,flick%20knives%20and%20gravity%20knives.%22 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm#:~:text=%22Off...

unishark 6y ago
Sort of the government version of Poe's law.
noir_lord 6y ago
I love the logic (or lack) with things like that. Are they also going to ban files and bar stock because give me those and you can make something utterly lethal.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I always though a screwdriver would be more effective for stabbing people and much less conspicuous...
- ben_w 6y ago
  A police officer came to my school and told the assembled students that sharpened rulers counted as knives. (I never bothered checking if he was right or making it up).
  - hansvm 6y ago
    A strict reading of the law in many US cities classifies nerf and airsoft guns as deadly weapons regardless of the velocities involved. I don't think that gets applied often (ever?), but a few people have gotten deadly weapon charges for using BB guns, so the line isn't too far away. With that as the backdrop I wouldn't be surprised at sharpened rulers being classified as knives (especially as pertaining to laws regarding weapons near schools). I might be off base here, but I think those kinds of bogus laws are usually applied selectively in situations where any reasonable observer would agree that the perpetrator ought to be charged with something, but there isn't anything better to stick them with. The danger of course is that everyone always being guilty of something allows for less desirable forms of selective enforcement (race, gender, journalism, protests, teenagers), intentionally or not.

whydoineedone 6y ago

Kitchen knives and communication are completely different things. Bad actors spreading subversive ideas that could shake the fabric of society and undermine the national security of countries is not the same as being able to carry a knife around in your house. Bad state actors can and do exploit this anonymity.

innocenat 6y ago

You are joking, but it's illegal in Japan to carry a locked-blade knives or folding knives with blade longer than 5.5cm. You need a solid reason to carry those, like if you just buy it from the shop (in the original package), or if you are a chef, etc.

NeutronStar 6y ago
I can't go to work with a steak knife?
jowsie 6y ago
Same in the UK, but the police can also decide you don't have a valid reason for a legal to carry pocket knife, and charge you anyway.
- woadwarrior01 6y ago
  Likewise in Ireland[1]. [1]: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/section/9/enacted/en/html#zza12y1990s9 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/section/9/ena...
- jamaicahest 6y ago
  Same in Denmark. Perhaps this is standard in a lot of western countries?
mstade 6y ago
Sweden is the same, carrying almost any kind of knife in a public space is generally illegal. There are exceptions, such as construction workers who need to carry knives and other pointy things for work, but generally it's not allowed.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Yet people bring knifes to picnics, walks, hikes all the time. "Normal use of pocket knife" is how the police formulates one of the exceptions or carve-outs for legitimate use of a knife in public spaces. There is a lot of leeway there.

the-dude 6y ago

Already happening in several city centres in NL : all knives are forbidden, even if you are a tradesman(?) like carpenters etc.

NeutronStar 6y ago
How do you cut anything?

umvi 6y ago

Actually a lot of countries do ban knives. And guns. And anything else bad actors might abuse.

centimeter 6y ago
“Anything else bad across might abuse” includes things that people can’t possibly delude themselves into thinking it would be rational to outlaw, such as cars and caustic cleaning agents. Of course, shockingly few of these ban-heavy countries, with the exception of the East Asian ones, have considered the much more effective strategy of adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors. Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system) but having fairly lax object laws (knives are mostly fine, guns are relatively loosely regulated) and it works well for them.
- ben_w 6y ago
  > Switzerland is almost unique in only adopting laws to reduce the number of bad actors (very strict immigration system) Strict? 25% of Switzerland’s population is foreign-born[1], and they are in the Schengen area, so no passport needed to cross the borders. I’ve cycled through at least three, none of which were even marked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#/media/File%3ASwitzerland%2C_permanent_foreign_residents_as_%25_of_total_population%2C_1900-2011.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland#/...
  - centimeter 6y ago
    "Strict" doesn't necessarily mean "don't let anyone in"; in this case it means "have a rigorous validation process to ensure you only let in very desirable migrants".
    - ben_w 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Rights_Directive#Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Rights_Directive#S...

nirui 6y ago

"Kitchen knives" went too far to be an example. How about door locks? I still don't get the idea that having a weakened security system could somehow benefit security. Based on many real-life hack stories I've heard, it's usually the "bad actors" who's taking advantage of unsecured apps to attack normal people, this is the very reason why developers are making apps more secure to begin with. Another point is, insecured systems are usually easy to take control of (By injecting malwares payload into the brokenly-encrypted traffic for example), then "bad actors" can turn those systems to a trojan proxy. How does that help if you want to make things safe? Last point: I know this is about big companies encryptions. But really, "Roll Your Own Encryption" is not that bad anymore if all other "secured-encryption" was bugged. And, really, roll your own encryption is not that hard today if your only goal is to annoy the FBI. Real last point: Even if companies such as Google and Facebook did banned encryption, does that also prevents "bad actors" from using real encryption on top of their service? You can even send your nudes to me safely by encrypting it with my public key and publish the encrypted data here (Don't actually do that). The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.

leppr 6y ago
> The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure. That's what projects like Maskbook do[1]. The problem with those is that the use of such technology can be detected, and thus the small number of users singled out. You'd need steganography for this principle to work, and AFAIK that's already what paranoid criminals are doing. So in reality making E2E encryption inconvenient only penalizes regular honest people. [1]: https://mask.io/ https://mask.io/
- nirui 6y ago
  Those user sticks out because system such as Maskbook was not designed to hide the fact that it carries encrypted data. However, a system can be designed to do that with ease. You can encode data in video streams with Fourier transform, you can encode data using English words, you can put encrypted data as JEPG payload etc. "Bad actors" will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from law enforcement, they'll kill the police in a blink if their account balanced out (On the same note, they can also join and control the police from within), let alone to learn to use encryption. It is the normal people who will feel most of the hurt, because after that they don't even have the protection against bad actors.