7 ms·

We need encryption to do peaceful things like economic transactions on the internet and private conversation. We don't need assault rifles for anything but murd

We need encryption to do peaceful things like economic transactions on the internet and private conversation. We don't need assault rifles for anything but murder. So no it's not the same.

CameronNemo 5y ago
Murder? Self defense is not murder. But again my point was not that they are similar, just that they are valuable, difficult to control, and law enforcement wants a monopoly on them.
- lexicality 5y ago
  I can understand owning a pistol for self defence, but what situation does a civilian need an assault rifle in? Surely it'd just get in the way massively in any kind of home invasion scenario and if you end up firing it the bullet will go through 3 houses and hit someone's dog
calvinmorrison 5y ago
Crypto exists because bad actors exist. The same reason Americans own guns.
- cl0ne 5y ago
  Some Americans own guns for subsistence hunting as a source of food.
  - kajecounterhack 5y ago
    You can use a non-automatic rifle or shotgun for this. You don't need an assault rifle. And we can talk a lot about carve-outs for folks like this, or just admit that they are rare and like any creature in the free market, they need to adapt to a changing landscape of rules and regulations.
    - calvinmorrison 5y ago
      Just wondering, do you think automatic machine guns are easy to acquire in the states?
      - kajecounterhack 5y ago
        I qualified with "non-automatic" because semi-automatics are easy to acquire.
- thereare5lights 5y ago
  Didn't think of it this way but this is spot on. If people could trust each other, then we wouldn't need crypto in the first place. Just like if we could trust others not to attack us, we wouldn't need weapons for self defense.
- cpursley 5y ago
  And historically the worst bad actors have been governments (in terms of body count). Which is why both guns and crypto help level the playing field a bit more.
  - kajecounterhack 5y ago
    Crypto helps level the playing field, because particularly in a democracy the ability to disseminate information is super important; it can help unseat bad people in power. Guns do NOT help level the playing field. Your government is way more powerful than any number of automatic weapons you might possess. Your government could simply freeze your bank accounts. They could take away your passport. They don't even need guns to hurt you.
    - calvinmorrison 5y ago
      fortunate son plays over the sound of helicopters Narrator: we were In Country, 1972....
- gre 5y ago
  Crypto and guns exist because they are possible.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  That doesn't make them at all the same. Just a few differences: * Crypto has not killed people, guns cause mass shootings at schools, malls, and movie theaters. * Crypto makes certain classes of theft impossible. Guns make revenge possible, and threats possible. Guns do not make any classes of theft impossible. * Crypto increases our civil liberties (freedom of assembly, speech), and overall safety (bank website is trustworthy). Guns decrease our confidence that our kids won't be shot at school, that we won't be attacked at a movie theater or a bar. * If everyone has crypto we truly are safe. If you let everyone have a gun, would you feel safe? The best you can hope when that one crazy person shoots your family member is that you shoot them back, but you don't get your family member back do you? Guns don't _prevent_ crime effectively but crypto sure does. They can deter, they can administer payback, but they are generally a destructive force vs a preventative one.
doomroot 5y ago
What about owning an assault rifle shooting range? I think those owners need assault rifles for things besides murder. I get your point but try not to be an absolutist.
- kokx 5y ago
  In countries where assault rifles are banned, these things generally still are possible. With strict rules, for example you're only allowed to have your rifle and ammo at a shooting range, and psychological review of everyone involved. Besides all that, it very much is a hobby for people. Much less a need than encryption, which is required to keep simple things like ordering something online secure.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  You don't _need_ to own an assault rifle shooting range. So you don't _need_ assault rifles. We _need_ encryption to have functioning society. Everyone needs to be able to visit their bank website, email, etc without being robbed, stalked, spied on. I am okay with being an absolutist about civilians not needing assault rifles. If we're talking about self defense and hand guns, maybe we can have a conversation, but omg what is anyone doing with an AR-15? You can say "having fun" but pretty sure anyone who's being fair would admit that's way past what anyone needs for self defense. Having one very specific sort of fun is not a need or a good justification for the damage these things do to the net safety of our society.
Alupis 5y ago
> We don't need assault rifles for anything but murder. We don't need encryption for anything but hiding illegal activities. You have nothing to fear if you're not a criminal. See what I did there? Neither argument is good. Just like the overwhelming majority of people that own so-called Assault Rifles never use them for anything except peaceful recreation - the overwhelming majority of people that use encryption never use it for anything except peaceful online activities. Why would we ban one and not the other? Both are used by criminals to commit acts which are already illegal. Making them doubly-illegal accomplishes nothing.
- catgary 5y ago
  Yeah I still remember that time a mentally ill young man got their hands on encryption and senselessly murdered 50 people.
  - mustafa_pasi 5y ago
    Encryption is used by criminals and terrorists.
    - nulbyte 5y ago
      I don't understand this argument. They use food and water, too. And roads. We never talk about banning those, because the benefit to society is greater than the risk.
  - samstave 5y ago
    Heh. I guess if you ban encryption, then only criminals will have encryption plays here - as then encrypting your shit via ransom-ware will be SUPER prevalent
  - LinuxBender 5y ago
    Not encryption so to speak, but people have use vulnerabilities in devices to cut off power. I suppose in a hot region one could take out many elderly this way. Some time ago, the power companies were doing rolling blackouts that contributed to the demise of many elderly.
chad_homenim_ 5y ago
> We don't need assault rifles > need Rosa Parks didn't need to sit at the front of the bus either. You don't "need" to prove to anyone why you should have anything. It is not up for you to decide.
marsven_422 5y ago
We need assault rifles to protect ourselves from the government.
dheera 5y ago
Not to mention you can't ban encryption without banning freedom of speech. If freedom of speech exists, freedom to speak what sounds like nonsense to a bystander also exists.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
I think the main thing they want to ban is end to end encryption. That you really don’t need. They are probably fine encrypting your connections to various companies since they can subpoena records
jcrites 5y ago
What do you mean by "assault rifle"? It's a term used by the media but it's often misused. The "scary black painted rifles" (e.g. AR-15s) that most civilians own are not "assault rifles". (Note that the acronym in AR-15 is ArmaLite Rifle and does not mean assault rifle: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15 ) Civilian AR-15s and generic versions are not assault rifles. The distinction is that rifles like AR-15s fire one bullet per trigger pull–they are semi-automatic, just other rifles, functionally the same as many hunting rifles and handgun, just larger than handguns and more accurate at longer ranges. (Some hunting rifles may be bolt-action rather than semi-automatic) Actual "assault rifles" are distinguished by having a feature called "selective fire" which switches between being firing like a semi-automatic rifle, and firing continuously like a fully-automatic "machine gun". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle Actual "machine guns" with fully automatic firing are highly regulated in the US and it's not easy for a regular person to obtain one. (For example, the Las Vegas shooter modified a regular rifle with a "bump stock" to transform a regular rifle into something that behaved like a machine gun–something that has subsequently been banned.) Examples of actual assault rifles are the US military's M16 and the AK-47. You won't see a typical civilian possess these, unless they go through a special process of obtaining a federal permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). Because you are correct that the purpose of such weapons is military warfare; and even in the military, fully automatic fire in modern combat is used in specific circumstances (typically as suppressive fire against a large enemy force; whereas the vast majority of shots taken by soldiers would be in single-shot mode). However there are plenty of justifiable reasons for people to possess firearms, whether rifles or handguns, such as hunting, sport shooting at a range, or personal protection (self-defense, assuming the attacker dies, is not murder). An additional reason is that firearm ownership is protected by the US Constitution in its 2nd Amendment; and one of the reasons for its protection by the constitution is to ensure that the population can defend itself against tyranny by its own government. (Read about the history of why it was added as an amendment; or read the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the text of which is very readable – once you get past its analysis of the language and grammar of the amendment to ascertain its precise meaning – and provides a history of the rationale of the text and the historical reasons for its protection as a right. It analyzes the language used in the Constitution and other legal documents, carefully deconstructs the grammar in the sentence, and concludes: > (...) We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. (...) There's a lot of detailed analysis that goes into the definition of "arms" as being non-military weapons that individuals might use for hunting or self-defense; the historical protection of that right; and why it's an individual right for all Americans.) Read the text of the court opinion here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html I can respect people's opinion who wish that firearm ownership was not permissible–it's an understandable perspective, especially for those who have been affected as victims by gun violence; however, the respectable path to "solve" that problem is for the United States to amend its constitution and modify or remove the 2nd Amendment. If that's the wish of the people I can respect it. However, it's hard for me to respect the "tricks" that states or municipalities try to pull, such as banning guns on public property (which Seattle tried to do, which was overruled by the courts–helped by the Washington State Constitution's pre-emption clause, which protects firearm ownership and forbids municipalities from limiting that right); or states like California that require a permit and make getting it burdensome.

We need encryption to do peaceful things like economic transactions on the internet and private conversation. We don't need assault rifles for anything but murder. So no it's not the same.

CameronNemo 5y ago

Murder? Self defense is not murder. But again my point was not that they are similar, just that they are valuable, difficult to control, and law enforcement wants a monopoly on them.

lexicality 5y ago
I can understand owning a pistol for self defence, but what situation does a civilian need an assault rifle in? Surely it'd just get in the way massively in any kind of home invasion scenario and if you end up firing it the bullet will go through 3 houses and hit someone's dog

calvinmorrison 5y ago

Crypto exists because bad actors exist. The same reason Americans own guns.

cl0ne 5y ago
Some Americans own guns for subsistence hunting as a source of food.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  You can use a non-automatic rifle or shotgun for this. You don't need an assault rifle. And we can talk a lot about carve-outs for folks like this, or just admit that they are rare and like any creature in the free market, they need to adapt to a changing landscape of rules and regulations.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    Just wondering, do you think automatic machine guns are easy to acquire in the states?
    - kajecounterhack 5y ago
      I qualified with "non-automatic" because semi-automatics are easy to acquire.
thereare5lights 5y ago
Didn't think of it this way but this is spot on. If people could trust each other, then we wouldn't need crypto in the first place. Just like if we could trust others not to attack us, we wouldn't need weapons for self defense.
cpursley 5y ago
And historically the worst bad actors have been governments (in terms of body count). Which is why both guns and crypto help level the playing field a bit more.
- kajecounterhack 5y ago
  Crypto helps level the playing field, because particularly in a democracy the ability to disseminate information is super important; it can help unseat bad people in power. Guns do NOT help level the playing field. Your government is way more powerful than any number of automatic weapons you might possess. Your government could simply freeze your bank accounts. They could take away your passport. They don't even need guns to hurt you.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    fortunate son plays over the sound of helicopters Narrator: we were In Country, 1972....
gre 5y ago
Crypto and guns exist because they are possible.
kajecounterhack 5y ago
That doesn't make them at all the same. Just a few differences: * Crypto has not killed people, guns cause mass shootings at schools, malls, and movie theaters. * Crypto makes certain classes of theft impossible. Guns make revenge possible, and threats possible. Guns do not make any classes of theft impossible. * Crypto increases our civil liberties (freedom of assembly, speech), and overall safety (bank website is trustworthy). Guns decrease our confidence that our kids won't be shot at school, that we won't be attacked at a movie theater or a bar. * If everyone has crypto we truly are safe. If you let everyone have a gun, would you feel safe? The best you can hope when that one crazy person shoots your family member is that you shoot them back, but you don't get your family member back do you? Guns don't _prevent_ crime effectively but crypto sure does. They can deter, they can administer payback, but they are generally a destructive force vs a preventative one.

doomroot 5y ago

What about owning an assault rifle shooting range? I think those owners need assault rifles for things besides murder. I get your point but try not to be an absolutist.

kokx 5y ago
In countries where assault rifles are banned, these things generally still are possible. With strict rules, for example you're only allowed to have your rifle and ammo at a shooting range, and psychological review of everyone involved. Besides all that, it very much is a hobby for people. Much less a need than encryption, which is required to keep simple things like ordering something online secure.
kajecounterhack 5y ago
You don't _need_ to own an assault rifle shooting range. So you don't _need_ assault rifles. We _need_ encryption to have functioning society. Everyone needs to be able to visit their bank website, email, etc without being robbed, stalked, spied on. I am okay with being an absolutist about civilians not needing assault rifles. If we're talking about self defense and hand guns, maybe we can have a conversation, but omg what is anyone doing with an AR-15? You can say "having fun" but pretty sure anyone who's being fair would admit that's way past what anyone needs for self defense. Having one very specific sort of fun is not a need or a good justification for the damage these things do to the net safety of our society.

Alupis 5y ago

> We don't need assault rifles for anything but murder. We don't need encryption for anything but hiding illegal activities. You have nothing to fear if you're not a criminal. See what I did there? Neither argument is good. Just like the overwhelming majority of people that own so-called Assault Rifles never use them for anything except peaceful recreation - the overwhelming majority of people that use encryption never use it for anything except peaceful online activities. Why would we ban one and not the other? Both are used by criminals to commit acts which are already illegal. Making them doubly-illegal accomplishes nothing.

catgary 5y ago
Yeah I still remember that time a mentally ill young man got their hands on encryption and senselessly murdered 50 people.
- mustafa_pasi 5y ago
  Encryption is used by criminals and terrorists.
  - nulbyte 5y ago
    I don't understand this argument. They use food and water, too. And roads. We never talk about banning those, because the benefit to society is greater than the risk.
- samstave 5y ago
  Heh. I guess if you ban encryption, then only criminals will have encryption plays here - as then encrypting your shit via ransom-ware will be SUPER prevalent
- LinuxBender 5y ago
  Not encryption so to speak, but people have use vulnerabilities in devices to cut off power. I suppose in a hot region one could take out many elderly this way. Some time ago, the power companies were doing rolling blackouts that contributed to the demise of many elderly.

chad_homenim_ 5y ago

> We don't need assault rifles > need Rosa Parks didn't need to sit at the front of the bus either. You don't "need" to prove to anyone why you should have anything. It is not up for you to decide.

marsven_422 5y ago

We need assault rifles to protect ourselves from the government.

dheera 5y ago

Not to mention you can't ban encryption without banning freedom of speech. If freedom of speech exists, freedom to speak what sounds like nonsense to a bystander also exists.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

I think the main thing they want to ban is end to end encryption. That you really don’t need. They are probably fine encrypting your connections to various companies since they can subpoena records

jcrites 5y ago

What do you mean by "assault rifle"? It's a term used by the media but it's often misused. The "scary black painted rifles" (e.g. AR-15s) that most civilians own are not "assault rifles". (Note that the acronym in AR-15 is ArmaLite Rifle and does not mean assault rifle: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15 ) Civilian AR-15s and generic versions are not assault rifles. The distinction is that rifles like AR-15s fire one bullet per trigger pull–they are semi-automatic, just other rifles, functionally the same as many hunting rifles and handgun, just larger than handguns and more accurate at longer ranges. (Some hunting rifles may be bolt-action rather than semi-automatic) Actual "assault rifles" are distinguished by having a feature called "selective fire" which switches between being firing like a semi-automatic rifle, and firing continuously like a fully-automatic "machine gun". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle Actual "machine guns" with fully automatic firing are highly regulated in the US and it's not easy for a regular person to obtain one. (For example, the Las Vegas shooter modified a regular rifle with a "bump stock" to transform a regular rifle into something that behaved like a machine gun–something that has subsequently been banned.) Examples of actual assault rifles are the US military's M16 and the AK-47. You won't see a typical civilian possess these, unless they go through a special process of obtaining a federal permit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). Because you are correct that the purpose of such weapons is military warfare; and even in the military, fully automatic fire in modern combat is used in specific circumstances (typically as suppressive fire against a large enemy force; whereas the vast majority of shots taken by soldiers would be in single-shot mode). However there are plenty of justifiable reasons for people to possess firearms, whether rifles or handguns, such as hunting, sport shooting at a range, or personal protection (self-defense, assuming the attacker dies, is not murder). An additional reason is that firearm ownership is protected by the US Constitution in its 2nd Amendment; and one of the reasons for its protection by the constitution is to ensure that the population can defend itself against tyranny by its own government. (Read about the history of why it was added as an amendment; or read the US Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the text of which is very readable – once you get past its analysis of the language and grammar of the amendment to ascertain its precise meaning – and provides a history of the rationale of the text and the historical reasons for its protection as a right. It analyzes the language used in the Constitution and other legal documents, carefully deconstructs the grammar in the sentence, and concludes: > (...) We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. (...) There's a lot of detailed analysis that goes into the definition of "arms" as being non-military weapons that individuals might use for hunting or self-defense; the historical protection of that right; and why it's an individual right for all Americans.) Read the text of the court opinion here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html I can respect people's opinion who wish that firearm ownership was not permissible–it's an understandable perspective, especially for those who have been affected as victims by gun violence; however, the respectable path to "solve" that problem is for the United States to amend its constitution and modify or remove the 2nd Amendment. If that's the wish of the people I can respect it. However, it's hard for me to respect the "tricks" that states or municipalities try to pull, such as banning guns on public property (which Seattle tried to do, which was overruled by the courts–helped by the Washington State Constitution's pre-emption clause, which protects firearm ownership and forbids municipalities from limiting that right); or states like California that require a permit and make getting it burdensome.