4 ms·

The right to bear arms should cover encryption.

by dagurp 6y ago

tyingq 6y ago
Just for fun, a guy bearing a genuine once-export-restricted encryption arm: http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/ http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/
tzs 6y ago
Bearing arms is regulated in much of the US, so I'm not sure you'd actually gain anything if you got encryption to count as arms.
nostromo 6y ago
The Roe v Wade decision was based on an implied, if not explicit, right to privacy in the constitution. If the court is basing decisions like abortion access on a right to privacy, then they should also start enforcing an actual right to privacy, including access to encryption.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Carpenter v. United States was 5-4, with Ginsburg in the majority. The textualists stacked up firmly against it. I wouldn't expect any help from SCOTUS for the next... ever. The textualist theory on privacy is basically: "no trespass, no problem". The trespass theory of privacy is why Scalia was in the majority on United States v. Jones (cant attach a GPS tracker to a car without a warrant) and Kyllo v. United States (cant invade the house with an IR camera without a warrant). The lack of a physical trespass explains why his intellectual bedfellows dissented in Carpenter.
- bladegash 6y ago
  If you are going to cite a central argument to Roe v. Wade related to privacy, then you might as well mention the other argument in Roe v. Wade regarding the government’s interests in protecting an individual’s (in this case, the woman and fetuses’) health. The court balanced their decision between those two interests, hence why states are able to impose some restrictions against abortion after the first trimester. Given that, what does the balance here look like?
fl0wenol 6y ago
You could argue that it does; up until 20 years ago it was treated like a munition (at least for export controls) until pressure from the tech boom got it reclassified as software. Might make an interesting constitutional rights case before the supreme court.

The right to bear arms should cover encryption.

by dagurp 6y ago

The right to bear arms should cover encryption.

Just for fun, a guy bearing a genuine once-export-restricted encryption arm: http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/ http://www.geekytattoos.com/illegal-tattoos-rsa-tattoos/

tzs 6y ago

Bearing arms is regulated in much of the US, so I'm not sure you'd actually gain anything if you got encryption to count as arms.

nostromo 6y ago

The Roe v Wade decision was based on an implied, if not explicit, right to privacy in the constitution. If the court is basing decisions like abortion access on a right to privacy, then they should also start enforcing an actual right to privacy, including access to encryption.

rmrfstar 6y ago
Carpenter v. United States was 5-4, with Ginsburg in the majority. The textualists stacked up firmly against it. I wouldn't expect any help from SCOTUS for the next... ever. The textualist theory on privacy is basically: "no trespass, no problem". The trespass theory of privacy is why Scalia was in the majority on United States v. Jones (cant attach a GPS tracker to a car without a warrant) and Kyllo v. United States (cant invade the house with an IR camera without a warrant). The lack of a physical trespass explains why his intellectual bedfellows dissented in Carpenter.
bladegash 6y ago
If you are going to cite a central argument to Roe v. Wade related to privacy, then you might as well mention the other argument in Roe v. Wade regarding the government’s interests in protecting an individual’s (in this case, the woman and fetuses’) health. The court balanced their decision between those two interests, hence why states are able to impose some restrictions against abortion after the first trimester. Given that, what does the balance here look like?

fl0wenol 6y ago

You could argue that it does; up until 20 years ago it was treated like a munition (at least for export controls) until pressure from the tech boom got it reclassified as software. Might make an interesting constitutional rights case before the supreme court.