10 ms·
May crypto advocates are going about this the wrong way. Instead of emphasizing that crypto should be protected by freedom of speech, they should acknowledge c
by pyuser583 5y ago
May crypto advocates are going about this the wrong way.
Instead of emphasizing that crypto should be protected by freedom of speech, they should acknowledge crypto is a dangerous munition. Therefore it’s protected by the Second Amendment.
The second amendment says the right to bear “arms” will not be abridged. Not firearms.
Shouldn’t that protect crypto?
- inter_netuser 5y agooi, do you have a loicense for that hashing algo from the ATF?
- chottocharaii 5y agoI’m guessing you’re not a lawyer
- woodruffw 5y agoThis is (hilariously) misguided on two fronts: 1. There is a significantly larger body of jurisprudence dedicated to protecting freedom of expression, versus whatever you think the Second Amendment guarantees you. 2. The right to bear arms does not entitle you to specific weapons. That's why you're not allowed to own a nuclear warhead, and why strong encryption was historically on the ITAR munitions list. Arguing that cryptography is a dangerous weapon (it isn't!) is a terrible idea.
- inter_netuser 5y agoencryption is a defensive technology. It's like arguing bulletproof vests are weapons, but what do definitions really mean these days anyway. Unfortunately, with encryption (and code as speech) - has not been tested at the supreme court as much as most think. It's still an open question to an extent.