3 ms·

Calling it a weapon means it falls under 2nd Amendment. Pretty hard sell that it's a "military" weapon when you can carry it around on a thumb drive.

kube-system 5y ago
Calling something a weapon does not satisfy the applicability standards outlined in SCOTUS case law. SCOTUS says that the 2nd applies to weapons which are “bearable”, i.e: > "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.”
- artificial 5y ago
  One can own a cannon. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regulation-under-federal-explosives-laws https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regul...
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Which meets the above definition a 1000x better than software. Not that it matters, the 2nd amendment does not restrict congressional ability to legalize anything. It only prohibits restrictions.
curryst 5y ago
I don't think it's that hard of a sell. The size of the weapon doesn't really matter; there are firearms that aren't much larger than a thumbdrive (i.e. pen guns). On the other hand, there's a longstanding tradition of military technology that is designed to destroy the enemy's infrastructure rather than to directly kill enemy combatants. The closest parallel is probably an EMP strike. They're designed to inflict 0 casualties, but they cripple the enemy. That mirrors the usage of offensive software; they don't inflict any casualties directly, but they can ruin supply chains, remove communication capabilities from the enemy, etc. They probably deserve to be classified as weapons, and banned by a subsequent law. I think the government has a compelling case that would almost certainly pass strict scrutiny. It seems a logical place to put them, because they are dangerous, and the strict scrutiny puts an onus on the government to use the least restrictive means possible to legislate them. I fear the alternative is that they aren't classed as weapons, and we get some overly broad CFAA type legislature that threatens to penalize security researchers.

kube-system 5y ago

Calling something a weapon does not satisfy the applicability standards outlined in SCOTUS case law. SCOTUS says that the 2nd applies to weapons which are “bearable”, i.e: > "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.”

artificial 5y ago
One can own a cannon. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regulation-under-federal-explosives-laws https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/black-powder-subject-regul...
- kube-system 5y ago
  Which meets the above definition a 1000x better than software. Not that it matters, the 2nd amendment does not restrict congressional ability to legalize anything. It only prohibits restrictions.

curryst 5y ago

I don't think it's that hard of a sell. The size of the weapon doesn't really matter; there are firearms that aren't much larger than a thumbdrive (i.e. pen guns). On the other hand, there's a longstanding tradition of military technology that is designed to destroy the enemy's infrastructure rather than to directly kill enemy combatants. The closest parallel is probably an EMP strike. They're designed to inflict 0 casualties, but they cripple the enemy. That mirrors the usage of offensive software; they don't inflict any casualties directly, but they can ruin supply chains, remove communication capabilities from the enemy, etc. They probably deserve to be classified as weapons, and banned by a subsequent law. I think the government has a compelling case that would almost certainly pass strict scrutiny. It seems a logical place to put them, because they are dangerous, and the strict scrutiny puts an onus on the government to use the least restrictive means possible to legislate them. I fear the alternative is that they aren't classed as weapons, and we get some overly broad CFAA type legislature that threatens to penalize security researchers.