3 ms·

>People don't have a right to encryption, or a right to a specific computing environment, or really, a right to anything at all This is an incredibly American

by xxpor 5y ago

>People don't have a right to encryption, or a right to a specific computing environment, or really, a right to anything at all This is an incredibly American libertarianish view, and essentially completely unheard of in Europe. The Europeans frame things in terms of positive rights all the time.

jeofken 5y ago
Let’s keep the level higher on HN. The ideas of freedom and universal rights isn’t unheard of in Europe - it originated here, and you’re certainly not speaking for all os us when you claim we accept the idea of “positive rights”.
quotemstr 5y ago
Yes, although you can also see the libertarianist approach in also some strains of British thinking. All I'm doing is claiming that the American approach leads, in the end, to greater and more permanent personal liberty. I don't have anything against Europeans or their approach --- I just disagree with them on how to form a basis for limitations on state power.
- tpush 5y ago
  > All I'm doing is claiming that the American approach leads, in the end, to greater and more permanent personal liberty. Well, that's just it: Europeans would look to America and claim the same for them. (Specifically with emphasis on "in the end".)
- Jensson 5y ago
  > All I'm doing is claiming that the American approach leads, in the end, to greater and more permanent personal liberty Your life being controlled by huge corporations because the government doesn't stop them from controlling everything doesn't give a lot of people personal liberty.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Then again, those huge corporations in question exist because the state gives them the ability to incorporate in the first place, and then exerts its monopoly on the use of force to protect their capital as it gets accumulated and concentrated.
harpersealtako 5y ago
Well, in this case the difference is between two statements: * The state grants citizens the right to encrypt data * The state cannot infringe upon the right of people to encrypt data. These two statements have important differences. Philosophically, the difference is that in the positive rights model, government is the source of rights, and if the government did not exist, you would not have this right. In the negative rights model, the source of rights is man's natural free will, and the government's declaration of rights is an enumeration of an existing right he already had (and yes, I'm conflating negative and natural rights, I apologize, but the point is still true). It seems pretty obvious that encryption is more accurately a negative right -- if you were the last human on earth, alone in the desert, you would of course have the right to encrypt a message you carve into a stone (who could stop you?). This is in contrast to a positive right like "the right to housing". The "right to housing" is an entitlement that the government promises they are going to provide to all citizens. All citizens, even those who cannot afford or build one on their own, are given a home if they want one. It is further clear when you look at what would happen if these two examples were reversed. If government grants the right to encrypt data, then what would happen if there was no government? Do you suddenly stop being able to do encryption? This would make no sense. Similarly, if you were too weak or lacked the materials to build a house yourself (as the last man alive wandering the desert), nobody would naturally grant it to you. A house does not simply materialize through free will alone. This suggests to me without a doubt that the right to encryption should be considered a negative right (and you should certainly believe this too). The only debate is whether the distinction matters in a practical sense -- this is where the libertarians will probably argue that it does, and I would certainly agree with them, but that argument is a lot more complex and subjective. In this case it's a little easier since the specifics/vagueries of this specific law leaves quite a bit to be desired over the obvious negative rights version of it.
- Jensson 5y ago
  The main difference is that with positive rights the government will defend your rights from others, while negative rights you are on your own to defend your rights from others. For example, if Google infringes someone's rights to free speech the government can intervene if it was a positive declaration, but with a negative declaration the government doesn't care since it only says that the government can't infringe on that right.

by xxpor 5y ago

jeofken 5y ago

Let’s keep the level higher on HN. The ideas of freedom and universal rights isn’t unheard of in Europe - it originated here, and you’re certainly not speaking for all os us when you claim we accept the idea of “positive rights”.

quotemstr 5y ago

Yes, although you can also see the libertarianist approach in also some strains of British thinking. All I'm doing is claiming that the American approach leads, in the end, to greater and more permanent personal liberty. I don't have anything against Europeans or their approach --- I just disagree with them on how to form a basis for limitations on state power.

tpush 5y ago
> All I'm doing is claiming that the American approach leads, in the end, to greater and more permanent personal liberty. Well, that's just it: Europeans would look to America and claim the same for them. (Specifically with emphasis on "in the end".)
Jensson 5y ago
> All I'm doing is claiming that the American approach leads, in the end, to greater and more permanent personal liberty Your life being controlled by huge corporations because the government doesn't stop them from controlling everything doesn't give a lot of people personal liberty.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Then again, those huge corporations in question exist because the state gives them the ability to incorporate in the first place, and then exerts its monopoly on the use of force to protect their capital as it gets accumulated and concentrated.

harpersealtako 5y ago

Well, in this case the difference is between two statements: * The state grants citizens the right to encrypt data * The state cannot infringe upon the right of people to encrypt data. These two statements have important differences. Philosophically, the difference is that in the positive rights model, government is the source of rights, and if the government did not exist, you would not have this right. In the negative rights model, the source of rights is man's natural free will, and the government's declaration of rights is an enumeration of an existing right he already had (and yes, I'm conflating negative and natural rights, I apologize, but the point is still true). It seems pretty obvious that encryption is more accurately a negative right -- if you were the last human on earth, alone in the desert, you would of course have the right to encrypt a message you carve into a stone (who could stop you?). This is in contrast to a positive right like "the right to housing". The "right to housing" is an entitlement that the government promises they are going to provide to all citizens. All citizens, even those who cannot afford or build one on their own, are given a home if they want one. It is further clear when you look at what would happen if these two examples were reversed. If government grants the right to encrypt data, then what would happen if there was no government? Do you suddenly stop being able to do encryption? This would make no sense. Similarly, if you were too weak or lacked the materials to build a house yourself (as the last man alive wandering the desert), nobody would naturally grant it to you. A house does not simply materialize through free will alone. This suggests to me without a doubt that the right to encryption should be considered a negative right (and you should certainly believe this too). The only debate is whether the distinction matters in a practical sense -- this is where the libertarians will probably argue that it does, and I would certainly agree with them, but that argument is a lot more complex and subjective. In this case it's a little easier since the specifics/vagueries of this specific law leaves quite a bit to be desired over the obvious negative rights version of it.

Jensson 5y ago
The main difference is that with positive rights the government will defend your rights from others, while negative rights you are on your own to defend your rights from others. For example, if Google infringes someone's rights to free speech the government can intervene if it was a positive declaration, but with a negative declaration the government doesn't care since it only says that the government can't infringe on that right.