5 ms·

You've confused fission with fusion. Thermonuclear doesn't mean what you think it means. You say the LSD example is "Inapplicable" to the question of cost, dif

You've confused fission with fusion. Thermonuclear doesn't mean what you think it means. You say the LSD example is "Inapplicable" to the question of cost, difficulty and the economics of illegal activities... in what way? It isn't the same as your favorite example, but getting ahold of large quantities of the correct isotope of uranium is less convenient than you seem to think. The unit cost of destruction goes down every year; fears are normal if relevant. You'd do better to argue, say, that terrorism kills only a fraction of the people every year that asthma does. Which is true, even in Isreal, during every year of its existence.

raxxorrax 6y ago
You conventionally use fission material to start a thermonuclear bomb, but that wasn't the point at all. On the contrary, it was to highlight the careless neglect of intricacies that the article argues would keep lesser educated terrorist from benefiting from encryption. Wasn't that the point? My comment was deliberately contrasting having access to Uranium and having a feasible enrichment process. It does not matter if for a dirty bomb, a nuclear bomb or thermonuclear bomb. The articles argues about lacking education of fundamentalists and it is probably often true. The WTC attack was an exception to this case, but let us assume this premise to hold in the general case, like with my grandma (sic). Fine, some terrorists would fail due to lacking knowledge. If that happens too often I would expect this to change rather quickly. It also contains other premises: States act according to the law. That is empirically wrong as we know from different whistleblowers how states handled surveillance. We could go back to that argument if we start talking about whether it was the "right thing to do", but I am referring to the premise at hand. A state is not your mothers tits and I would not want to keep the benefits of encryption from the general population. Maybe you could argue that the EU, the US and some other states could be trusted to have this power, but I simply do not agree. The argument remains purely subjective forever at this point, but my position would leave the technology accessible for every user and the security benefit is quantitatively higher compared to the terrorist case. I am thinking about every country here with billions of users. We could create some tangible metrics here, but I am confident. > kills only a fraction of the people every year that asthma does I could argue that, but that could end in a trap since it could get into ethics and "saving human lives at all costs" that can easily be manipulated. I think in the end it would hold against establishing a huge surveillance mechanism with very likely lacking oversight if I dare to look into the future, but it is another perspective. I could also argue that the goal of the terrorist isn't just to kill as many people as possible, they primarily want to signal their objections to a certain way of living, but that is also another discussion. Maybe create a forum where they could vent their objections. Some honeypot you could take a look at and just keep them from coming up with any ingenious plan. Worth a shot, much less expensive and you wouldn't have them on their guard. And you would still have secure encryption. There is real evidence that the possibility of being surveilled changes behavior and we live would again live at mothers tits, sorry , I meant under constant state surveillance that we would incorporate into every form of online exchange. Sounds like cancer.
- Nomentatus 6y ago
  Since I haven't argued against any of this, I haven't replied.

raxxorrax 6y ago

You conventionally use fission material to start a thermonuclear bomb, but that wasn't the point at all. On the contrary, it was to highlight the careless neglect of intricacies that the article argues would keep lesser educated terrorist from benefiting from encryption. Wasn't that the point? My comment was deliberately contrasting having access to Uranium and having a feasible enrichment process. It does not matter if for a dirty bomb, a nuclear bomb or thermonuclear bomb. The articles argues about lacking education of fundamentalists and it is probably often true. The WTC attack was an exception to this case, but let us assume this premise to hold in the general case, like with my grandma (sic). Fine, some terrorists would fail due to lacking knowledge. If that happens too often I would expect this to change rather quickly. It also contains other premises: States act according to the law. That is empirically wrong as we know from different whistleblowers how states handled surveillance. We could go back to that argument if we start talking about whether it was the "right thing to do", but I am referring to the premise at hand. A state is not your mothers tits and I would not want to keep the benefits of encryption from the general population. Maybe you could argue that the EU, the US and some other states could be trusted to have this power, but I simply do not agree. The argument remains purely subjective forever at this point, but my position would leave the technology accessible for every user and the security benefit is quantitatively higher compared to the terrorist case. I am thinking about every country here with billions of users. We could create some tangible metrics here, but I am confident. > kills only a fraction of the people every year that asthma does I could argue that, but that could end in a trap since it could get into ethics and "saving human lives at all costs" that can easily be manipulated. I think in the end it would hold against establishing a huge surveillance mechanism with very likely lacking oversight if I dare to look into the future, but it is another perspective. I could also argue that the goal of the terrorist isn't just to kill as many people as possible, they primarily want to signal their objections to a certain way of living, but that is also another discussion. Maybe create a forum where they could vent their objections. Some honeypot you could take a look at and just keep them from coming up with any ingenious plan. Worth a shot, much less expensive and you wouldn't have them on their guard. And you would still have secure encryption. There is real evidence that the possibility of being surveilled changes behavior and we live would again live at mothers tits, sorry , I meant under constant state surveillance that we would incorporate into every form of online exchange. Sounds like cancer.

Nomentatus 6y ago
Since I haven't argued against any of this, I haven't replied.