5 ms·

These assholes just keep trying and trying until they get their way. At least it's good to see there's some actual pushback in the United States. Here in Austra

These assholes just keep trying and trying until they get their way. At least it's good to see there's some actual pushback in the United States. Here in Australia, this sort of legislation has bipartisan support, it gets rubberstamped and passed on a Friday evening before a public holiday with the media staying silent. Keep fighting against these bills, or else you'll get a government that happily runs roughshod over your civil liberties like ours.

Arubis 5y ago
Of course they do. They know the equation: we have to win every time; they only have to win once.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yeah. Maybe there should be a law that makes it illegal to attempt to ban encryption.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  But what if they make it illegal to attempt to make it illegal to attempt to ban encryption?
- nichos 5y ago
  Shouldn't it be covered under the 4th amendment?
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    There is historical precedent classifying encryption as munitions, so arguably the 2nd amendment would also apply, in addition to the 4th.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      There's also historical precedent for classifying encryption software as speech (at least when printed in book form), so the 1st amendment should apply too. Then of course there are 5th amendment issues with requiring people to disclose their encryption keys. While we're at it, the 3rd amendment forbids the quartering of soldiers in homes, which, as others have pointed out, is at least analogous to requiring government-approved spying software on our phones. https://www.rstreet.org/2016/04/12/encryption-balancing-the-needs-of-law-enforcement-and-the-fourth-amendment/ https://www.rstreet.org/2016/04/12/encryption-balancing-the-...
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        > While we're at it, the 3rd amendment forbids the quartering of soldiers in homes, which, as others have pointed out, is at least analogous to requiring government-approved spying software on our phones. Very great point! Quartering soldiers involved feeding and housing them, and caring for their mounts. Requiring me to run code on my device without compensation seems to fit that bill rather nicely. Thanks for that.

Arubis 5y ago

Of course they do. They know the equation: we have to win every time; they only have to win once.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Yeah. Maybe there should be a law that makes it illegal to attempt to ban encryption.

dane-pgp 5y ago
But what if they make it illegal to attempt to make it illegal to attempt to ban encryption?
nichos 5y ago
Shouldn't it be covered under the 4th amendment?
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  There is historical precedent classifying encryption as munitions, so arguably the 2nd amendment would also apply, in addition to the 4th.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    There's also historical precedent for classifying encryption software as speech (at least when printed in book form), so the 1st amendment should apply too. Then of course there are 5th amendment issues with requiring people to disclose their encryption keys. While we're at it, the 3rd amendment forbids the quartering of soldiers in homes, which, as others have pointed out, is at least analogous to requiring government-approved spying software on our phones. https://www.rstreet.org/2016/04/12/encryption-balancing-the-needs-of-law-enforcement-and-the-fourth-amendment/ https://www.rstreet.org/2016/04/12/encryption-balancing-the-...
    - aspenmayer 5y ago
      > While we're at it, the 3rd amendment forbids the quartering of soldiers in homes, which, as others have pointed out, is at least analogous to requiring government-approved spying software on our phones. Very great point! Quartering soldiers involved feeding and housing them, and caring for their mounts. Requiring me to run code on my device without compensation seems to fit that bill rather nicely. Thanks for that.