5 ms·
> 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
by Alupis 6y 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 6y agoYeah I still remember that time a mentally ill young man got their hands on encryption and senselessly murdered 50 people.
- mustafa_pasi 6y agoEncryption is used by criminals and terrorists.
- nulbyte 6y agoI 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 6y agoHeh. 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 6y agoNot 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.
- Kuinox 6y agoYou need encryption to make order online without anybody getting your card numbers.
- nemonemo 6y agoI need encryption to make sure nobody is listening to my sensitive conversation like legal/psychological counseling. It can be actually more secure than in-person conversation. Recreational ones are not "needs". Your analogy seems flawed.
- Threeve303 6y agoImagine needing legal help during the pandemic and not being able to privately speak to a lawyer without being absolutely sure someone isn’t going to listen in and try some old fashioned parallel construction.
- skissane 6y agoSuppose you had a choice between living in country A or country B. Country A bans encryption but allows assault rifles. Country B bans assault rifles but allows encryption. Which would you choose? I think it is obvious that country B is the better choice than country A. A lot of people (including myself) have zero interest in the hobby of recreational assault rifle ownership. But banning encryption has the potential to cause massive harm, both economic, and in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. If the government wants to control what you say and think, taking away your freedom to communicate out of the government's hearing is a great first step. By contrast, taking away the freedom to own assault rifles has far less impact – I don't have that freedom in the country in which I live, and I don't even notice it, because I have no interest in owning one. But I definitely would notice if the government tried to ban encryption.
- arrosenberg 6y agoI think a large number of Americans would take the opposite view.
- reedjosh 6y agoBut note how the encryption ban comes about after the firearm ban in the country of discussion. Firearms rights (at least in the US) were intended as protection from tyrannical governments more so than even self protection. Though I acknowledge that today the US government is too powerful for citizens with firearms to prevent any tyranny.
- u801e 6y ago> Firearms rights (at least in the US) were intended as protection from tyrannical governments more so than even self protection. The same argument could also apply to encryption. That is, it can offer you protection from a tyrannical government in addition to protecting your information from criminals.
- reedjosh 6y agoI do agree with you. I'm just pointing out that both are intended as rights of a sovereign individual to protect oneself from both other individuals and government.