6 ms·

Would it also be acceptable for the state to dictate how we store our bananas at home (pedophiles eat them too), what font we use in our greetings cards (terror

by krono 5y ago

Would it also be acceptable for the state to dictate how we store our bananas at home (pedophiles eat them too), what font we use in our greetings cards (terrorists also send birthday cards), or with which hand you are to wipe your arse (even Ted Bundy pooped)? Citizens should not be treated or approached as enemies of the state by default.

AdrianB1 5y ago
Don't laugh about bananas, there are already several regulations for it. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-press-releases/euromyths/bendybananas.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-pre...
1337shadow 5y ago
Let's legalize guns and drugs then! and party!
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Agree! Legalize drugs and strong crypto and guns. Earlier I was against legalizing drugs but I have come to my senses there too, but the last 80 or so years has proven that there is only one group that benefits from drugs being illegal in the long run: the criminals. As for guns, yes just like with insurance we pay, but compared to the alternative it is a small cost.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  ...yes. As long as neither of those things are used to harm another person, this should be legal.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    Actually, they kind of are. I mean, if you have a gun and use it to shoot cans in your backyard, or that you take drugs and stay home, or go out but don't drive, don't attract attention on you, don't cause any problem, are you even going to be arrested? You have no idea how busy the police is with actual criminals. I'm not saying we shouldn't do illegal things that don't harm others, I'm saying we should catch criminals who actually do harm.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      > I mean, if you have a gun and use it to shoot cans in your backyard Most of Europe will send you straight to jail. Several states in the US will as well. It's disgusting.
      - 1337shadow 5y ago
        You can still have a hunting permit, you can still practice at shooting clubs.
- krono 5y ago
  Guns exist solely to hurt or kill, there isn't much else you can do with them that's legal. Drugs, I believe some of them probably should be legal.
  - angelbar 5y ago
  - mellavora 5y ago
    Except that shooting sports have been in the Olympics longer than just about any other sport. It is a great form of meditation; for an analogy I refer the curious to "Zen and the Art of Archery" And many of my friends are hunters. This is a nice way to put food on the table. Esp with deer populations not having much other control on them since we got rid of most of the other large predators.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    Actually, shooting is a sport that isn't meant to hurt or kill. Drugs are great for society, doesn't matter how much they hurt and kill.
    - krono 5y ago
      That's precisely why both are available in a highly regulated fashion rather than completely outlawed.
      - 1337shadow 5y ago
        That's exactly why the law was not outlawing encryption at all: > the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities got removed from the draft law. I guess the article is pretty confusing.
        ttybird2 5y ago
        It is outlawing end-to-end encryption instead.
- wnoise 5y ago
  If you're going to attempt a reductio ad absurdam, the end position actually needs to be absurd. For drugs, I would assume legalization is the median position in this forum. Guns are more complicated, but there are definitely a lot of posters that think they should be legal.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    Just make sure that all your drug users do actually dismantle their guns before they take any! People are responsible as we all know, especially in our modern society where we value our own individuality above society, ie. "I can use drugs safely every once or twice a year, as such I want it easier for me to get some, and that's why I'm asking to make it legal for everybody, no matter the disaster we know drugs cause on a society". It's indeed exactly the same, "I want to hide my messages with my mom from my government so I will fight to prevent the government from being able to decrypt any message at all no matter the basis of the court order, no matter how many children have been raped or killed, I value my own freedom above security of society". Basically, "the victims don't matter as long as I'm fine".
    - ttybird2 5y ago
      "Basically, "the victims don't matter as long as I'm fine"." The victims here are these that get arrested for the victimless crime of taking drugs. A society is less secure if anyone who takes drugs runs the risk of being arrested. Also loving the unrelated "think of the children" argument.
      - 1337shadow 5y ago
        Why would you be arrested for taking drugs? Because you're driving on drugs perhaps? The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever.
        ttybird2 5y ago
        "Why would you be arrested for taking drugs?" Because it's illegal? "The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever." 1: I doubt it 2: You too, I hope that you (or your children!) will never be prosecuted for a victimless crime.
charcircuit 5y ago
>Citizens should not be treated or approached as enemies of the state by default. They aren't under these types of laws. Typically the government would need to get a warrant first before this is possible. You don't have to let them be able to read your messages by default.
- krono 5y ago
  That's a fair point. The nature of encryption complicates this slightly though. If the purpose of encryption is to make data unreadable, but a back-door exists that allows anyone with access to it to bypass the encryption, can the data ever really be considered unreadable?
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >but a back-door exists that allows anyone with access to it to bypass the encryption The trick is you don't do that. Ideally you would only want people with a valid warrant would be able to also decrypt the message (bypass the encryption). So the problem is that you want to design a system where this is possible. Perhaps it takes the cooperation of someone from the government and someone from within the company to verify the warrant. Perhaps you have a list of people who need to cryptographically sign the warrant.
    - krono 5y ago
      It must in no way be possible for any of these companies to ever run a non-verified decryption mechanism on any single server, computer, or other type of device. There are so many moving parts to manage, infinite possibilities for abuse, and it would require an absolute massive amount of trust in companies with numerous convictions for abuse of precisely that.
      - 1337shadow 5y ago
        I disagree, I believe that we can still have encryption and catch criminals based on encrypted communications.

by krono 5y ago

AdrianB1 5y ago

Don't laugh about bananas, there are already several regulations for it. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-press-releases/euromyths/bendybananas.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/news-and-pre...

1337shadow 5y ago

Let's legalize guns and drugs then! and party!

skinkestek 5y ago
Agree! Legalize drugs and strong crypto and guns. Earlier I was against legalizing drugs but I have come to my senses there too, but the last 80 or so years has proven that there is only one group that benefits from drugs being illegal in the long run: the criminals. As for guns, yes just like with insurance we pay, but compared to the alternative it is a small cost.
rpmisms 5y ago
...yes. As long as neither of those things are used to harm another person, this should be legal.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  Actually, they kind of are. I mean, if you have a gun and use it to shoot cans in your backyard, or that you take drugs and stay home, or go out but don't drive, don't attract attention on you, don't cause any problem, are you even going to be arrested? You have no idea how busy the police is with actual criminals. I'm not saying we shouldn't do illegal things that don't harm others, I'm saying we should catch criminals who actually do harm.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    > I mean, if you have a gun and use it to shoot cans in your backyard Most of Europe will send you straight to jail. Several states in the US will as well. It's disgusting.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      You can still have a hunting permit, you can still practice at shooting clubs.
krono 5y ago
Guns exist solely to hurt or kill, there isn't much else you can do with them that's legal. Drugs, I believe some of them probably should be legal.
- angelbar 5y ago
- mellavora 5y ago
  Except that shooting sports have been in the Olympics longer than just about any other sport. It is a great form of meditation; for an analogy I refer the curious to "Zen and the Art of Archery" And many of my friends are hunters. This is a nice way to put food on the table. Esp with deer populations not having much other control on them since we got rid of most of the other large predators.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  Actually, shooting is a sport that isn't meant to hurt or kill. Drugs are great for society, doesn't matter how much they hurt and kill.
  - krono 5y ago
    That's precisely why both are available in a highly regulated fashion rather than completely outlawed.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      That's exactly why the law was not outlawing encryption at all: > the proposed passage that would have forced companies to decrypt encrypted data upon request by the authorities got removed from the draft law. I guess the article is pretty confusing.
      - ttybird2 5y ago
        It is outlawing end-to-end encryption instead.
wnoise 5y ago
If you're going to attempt a reductio ad absurdam, the end position actually needs to be absurd. For drugs, I would assume legalization is the median position in this forum. Guns are more complicated, but there are definitely a lot of posters that think they should be legal.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  Just make sure that all your drug users do actually dismantle their guns before they take any! People are responsible as we all know, especially in our modern society where we value our own individuality above society, ie. "I can use drugs safely every once or twice a year, as such I want it easier for me to get some, and that's why I'm asking to make it legal for everybody, no matter the disaster we know drugs cause on a society". It's indeed exactly the same, "I want to hide my messages with my mom from my government so I will fight to prevent the government from being able to decrypt any message at all no matter the basis of the court order, no matter how many children have been raped or killed, I value my own freedom above security of society". Basically, "the victims don't matter as long as I'm fine".
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    "Basically, "the victims don't matter as long as I'm fine"." The victims here are these that get arrested for the victimless crime of taking drugs. A society is less secure if anyone who takes drugs runs the risk of being arrested. Also loving the unrelated "think of the children" argument.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      Why would you be arrested for taking drugs? Because you're driving on drugs perhaps? The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever.
      - ttybird2 5y ago
        "Why would you be arrested for taking drugs?" Because it's illegal? "The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever." 1: I doubt it 2: You too, I hope that you (or your children!) will never be prosecuted for a victimless crime.

charcircuit 5y ago

>Citizens should not be treated or approached as enemies of the state by default. They aren't under these types of laws. Typically the government would need to get a warrant first before this is possible. You don't have to let them be able to read your messages by default.

krono 5y ago
That's a fair point. The nature of encryption complicates this slightly though. If the purpose of encryption is to make data unreadable, but a back-door exists that allows anyone with access to it to bypass the encryption, can the data ever really be considered unreadable?
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >but a back-door exists that allows anyone with access to it to bypass the encryption The trick is you don't do that. Ideally you would only want people with a valid warrant would be able to also decrypt the message (bypass the encryption). So the problem is that you want to design a system where this is possible. Perhaps it takes the cooperation of someone from the government and someone from within the company to verify the warrant. Perhaps you have a list of people who need to cryptographically sign the warrant.
  - krono 5y ago
    It must in no way be possible for any of these companies to ever run a non-verified decryption mechanism on any single server, computer, or other type of device. There are so many moving parts to manage, infinite possibilities for abuse, and it would require an absolute massive amount of trust in companies with numerous convictions for abuse of precisely that.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      I disagree, I believe that we can still have encryption and catch criminals based on encrypted communications.