4 ms·

No matter your opinion on the issue, the firearm lobby would probably serve as an effective model for fighting legislation like this on a long term basis.

KerrAvon 5y ago
The second amendment, like abortion, is a political wedge issue used by politicians to wield against their opponents. You’re not going to replicate that with issues requiring more nuance and that cannot be used as emotional cudgels.
- umvi 5y ago
  The point though is that you can't afford minor losses here and there, because it's a war of attrition. Firearm lobby knows that the opposition's strategy is to just chip away at 2A rights slowly over the decades. Therefore, they can't afford to allow minor gun control victories here and there, or else a century later they are out of business and their supporters have no 2A rights anymore. Same with this. You can't allow minor anti-encryption victories here and there chipping away at privacy/mathematical rights or your great grandkids won't have those freedoms.
- queuebert 5y ago
  I think the lack of nuance employed by both 1A and 2A communities has been a strength. Nuance allows compromise, and compromise allows incrementalism. It's a classic fascist play. It's also a classic politician play to get people lost in the details so that no one truly understands their intent, i.e. "never let a good crisis go to waste". I'm willing to be proven wrong, however.
  - icelancer 5y ago
    >> Nuance allows compromise, and compromise allows incrementalism. Correct. So-called "pragmatism" and constant compromise is how we got into a ton of the messes we are in right now.
  - protomyth 5y ago
    "Encryption is my absolute right protected by the 1st and 2nd amendment" - there is no nuance and you are correct, nuance diminishes your rights over time. Plus, nuance is bad for campaign slogans or beating politicians about the head.
bpodgursky 5y ago
It would require people willing to be single-issue voters, the way many are on abortion or firearms. Would anyone here switch party votes to a candidate who sided their way on tech privacy — even if they disagreed on other core principles like abortion, gun rights, religion in schools, etc? Maybe a few, but I'm not convinced many.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Tie it to existing wedge issues. "Do you want Facebook knowing every time you buy a gun/get an abortion?"
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  I wouldn’t. That’s the sad thing in the US with its entrenched two party system. You have to choose between two unlikeable options. I usually vote Green but it’s sad that these votes are “lost”.
  - ryeights 5y ago
    The UK, with its n-party system, still manages to pass some pretty zany anti-civil-rights legislation…
- strulovich 5y ago
  Those single issue voters are the not present in many other countries besides the US. This might show that the right arguments and lobbying can turn what is not a big political debate into a wedge over time.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > the right arguments and lobbying Firearms and abortion became The Issue for so many single-issue voters because of well-funded, relentless fear-mongering. You can do the same thing with tech privacy, but you're going to have to "play dirty" to accomplish the same thing, and it's going to take decades. It's also important to note that abortion successfully tied itself into religion, which is not something you're going to be able to do with cryptography.
logiczero 5y ago
If encryption is treated as a munition[0], does it mean that the Second Amendment could actually be used to protect the right to use it? If the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens' ability to combat government overreach, it seems like it should... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

KerrAvon 5y ago

The second amendment, like abortion, is a political wedge issue used by politicians to wield against their opponents. You’re not going to replicate that with issues requiring more nuance and that cannot be used as emotional cudgels.

umvi 5y ago
The point though is that you can't afford minor losses here and there, because it's a war of attrition. Firearm lobby knows that the opposition's strategy is to just chip away at 2A rights slowly over the decades. Therefore, they can't afford to allow minor gun control victories here and there, or else a century later they are out of business and their supporters have no 2A rights anymore. Same with this. You can't allow minor anti-encryption victories here and there chipping away at privacy/mathematical rights or your great grandkids won't have those freedoms.
queuebert 5y ago
I think the lack of nuance employed by both 1A and 2A communities has been a strength. Nuance allows compromise, and compromise allows incrementalism. It's a classic fascist play. It's also a classic politician play to get people lost in the details so that no one truly understands their intent, i.e. "never let a good crisis go to waste". I'm willing to be proven wrong, however.
- icelancer 5y ago
  >> Nuance allows compromise, and compromise allows incrementalism. Correct. So-called "pragmatism" and constant compromise is how we got into a ton of the messes we are in right now.
- protomyth 5y ago
  "Encryption is my absolute right protected by the 1st and 2nd amendment" - there is no nuance and you are correct, nuance diminishes your rights over time. Plus, nuance is bad for campaign slogans or beating politicians about the head.

bpodgursky 5y ago

It would require people willing to be single-issue voters, the way many are on abortion or firearms. Would anyone here switch party votes to a candidate who sided their way on tech privacy — even if they disagreed on other core principles like abortion, gun rights, religion in schools, etc? Maybe a few, but I'm not convinced many.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 5y ago
Tie it to existing wedge issues. "Do you want Facebook knowing every time you buy a gun/get an abortion?"
spaetzleesser 5y ago
I wouldn’t. That’s the sad thing in the US with its entrenched two party system. You have to choose between two unlikeable options. I usually vote Green but it’s sad that these votes are “lost”.
- ryeights 5y ago
  The UK, with its n-party system, still manages to pass some pretty zany anti-civil-rights legislation…
strulovich 5y ago
Those single issue voters are the not present in many other countries besides the US. This might show that the right arguments and lobbying can turn what is not a big political debate into a wedge over time.
- smt88 5y ago
  > the right arguments and lobbying Firearms and abortion became The Issue for so many single-issue voters because of well-funded, relentless fear-mongering. You can do the same thing with tech privacy, but you're going to have to "play dirty" to accomplish the same thing, and it's going to take decades. It's also important to note that abortion successfully tied itself into religion, which is not something you're going to be able to do with cryptography.

logiczero 5y ago

If encryption is treated as a munition[0], does it mean that the Second Amendment could actually be used to protect the right to use it? If the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens' ability to combat government overreach, it seems like it should... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...