4 ms·

The connection between the two is really tenuous, I think the author is reaching here. You have a right to free speech as per the 1st, that includes transmitti

The connection between the two is really tenuous, I think the author is reaching here. You have a right to free speech as per the 1st, that includes transmitting gibberish, you have a right against unlawful searches and seizures as per the 4th, they have to basically already know what you're up to in order to force you to cooperate in an investigation, you have a right against self incrimination as per the 5th. That about covers encryption. I'm not quite sure what part of the constitution covers abortion, and I'm familiar with the ruling. While I don't want to comment on whether abortion should be legal or not in any given state, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with more than a cursory understanding on this topic that it is not actually constitutionally protected in the US, regardless whether you feel it should be or not.

robonerd 4y ago
> I'm not quite sure what part of the constitution covers abortion, and I'm familiar with the ruling. You don't seem to be asking, but for Roe vs Wade it's the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with it, if you're familiar with the ruling then you must know that much.
- lliamander 4y ago
  The constitutional case there is far weaker than the case for encryption (or firearms, for that matter).
  - robonerd 4y ago
    You don't have to agree with a ruling to understand a ruling. In this case, understanding Roe vs Wade means understanding that it was argued using the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with Roe vs Wade is rather irrelevant.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      It's very relevant; the current public abortion debate is a direct consequence of the fact that the supreme court doesn't agree with the ruling. You don't have to agree with it to understand it, nor to understand that it is incorrect. When this future ruling comes down, I highly doubt you'll be citing it as justification for it's own existence and saying that disagreement is irrelevant. Those that are happy with it won't be either, they'll justify it by saying it is the correct one, in their opinion. Whether one agrees or not is at the core of the conversation.
- usrn 4y ago
  I'm not seeing it in there. Do you have a section number? All it says is: "everyone born here is a person" and "we don't recognize politicians or debt from rebellions."
  - helpfulclippy 4y ago
    Basically, Roe’s logic goes like this: The 14th amendment gives everyone equal protection of the law, including from their state governments. SCOTUS historically took that to mean that there are federal restrictions on state law. A few relevant to the history of Roe: - States are bound by the bill of rights (eg. they can’t violate your free speech for instance) - States can’t tell you where your kid has to go to school, or what they can or can’t study - States can’t restrict access to contraceptives Since the 9th amendment acknowledges the existence of rights NOT enumerated in the constitution, the court decided that it has to look at rights that are historical and customary, or contained in the “penumbra” of enumerated rights. Since you have a right to be safe from searches and seizures, and to be free from having the government quarter troops in your home, and whatever unenumerated rights exist, they’d several years prior agreed includes “marital privacy” to protect couples’ rights to choose whether to use birth control. Shortly thereafter in Roe they decided that women have a right to choose to get an abortion prior to the first trimester. They chose that cutoff based on historical and customary treatment of abortion in English common law as well as older western legal traditions. That’s a pretty brief summary, but that’s how they got there.
- honkdaddy 4y ago
  >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That's the one people use, right?
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  I am aware, but anybody that takes even a cursory look at it knows that it was "legislating from the bench" as it were. And you might be OK with that, you might be happy about it because you think abortion should be enumerated. But it is plain as day that it isn't, and doesn't fall within the scope of any enumerated right, or within the direct purview of the federal government and therefore outside of that of the states.
davedx 4y ago
You're missing the article's point: it's not about whether abortion should be legal or not. It's that encryption should be strongly protected because it protects people from unjust laws.
- lliamander 4y ago
  Yeah, but why even bring abortion up? It was a bad segway.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
    For future reference, segway is a mobile transportation device used and beloved by Paul Blart, mall cop. Segue (same pronunciation, Italian origination) is an uninterrupted transition.
    - dancemethis 4y ago
      I never understood why it stopped being called "The Thing".
  - snickerbockers 4y ago
    because otherwise nobody would've clicked on the link.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Because (as argued I'm the article), it is generally assumed by most people (or, at least say, most tech workers) in the US that our laws are, generally, "good". That is, unlike, say, laws in China or Saudi Arabia, most tech workers would be OK with a lawful, court-ordered data request from a US jurisdiction. (Related - yes, of course I realize that there are some laws, maybe even many laws, that some people very strongly disagree with, but in balance, I think most people think data requests in the US are to solve "unambiguous" crimes like assault, theft, murder, child abuse, etc.). With abortion, though, that assumption goes out the window. Many people, especially tech workers in coastal states, strongly believe that laws criminalizing abortion are downright evil. This would be a huge shift in that, for the first time, many of these folks could be convinced that protection from sharing data with the state, even one you think has generally "good" laws, because the idea to share data to prosecute someone for aiding an abortion is so deeply abhorrent to them. For these folks, it's likely this is the first time that the importance of strong encryption will "click" for them, due to them feeling like this is a clear case where legal requests from US law enforcement are unambiguously wrong.
iroei9j 4y ago
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Founders covered this in their writings. The defined rights were not to be considered the extent of the rights afforded the people. They worried about including a specific Bill of Rights as it would lead to belief rights were indeed limited to the things they included. A right to one’s own bodily agency, to discuss and engage in medical discourse and behaviors, is not explicitly called out in the Bill of Rights but it’s also not explicitly denied. The court uses that logic constantly when it empowers elites. I think it’s pretty obvious America is done for since the people themselves believe now the powers that be can police their speech and agency in private settings when it’s merely what they don’t agree with.

robonerd 4y ago

> I'm not quite sure what part of the constitution covers abortion, and I'm familiar with the ruling. You don't seem to be asking, but for Roe vs Wade it's the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with it, if you're familiar with the ruling then you must know that much.

lliamander 4y ago
The constitutional case there is far weaker than the case for encryption (or firearms, for that matter).
- robonerd 4y ago
  You don't have to agree with a ruling to understand a ruling. In this case, understanding Roe vs Wade means understanding that it was argued using the 14th Amendment. Whether or not you agree with Roe vs Wade is rather irrelevant.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    It's very relevant; the current public abortion debate is a direct consequence of the fact that the supreme court doesn't agree with the ruling. You don't have to agree with it to understand it, nor to understand that it is incorrect. When this future ruling comes down, I highly doubt you'll be citing it as justification for it's own existence and saying that disagreement is irrelevant. Those that are happy with it won't be either, they'll justify it by saying it is the correct one, in their opinion. Whether one agrees or not is at the core of the conversation.
usrn 4y ago
I'm not seeing it in there. Do you have a section number? All it says is: "everyone born here is a person" and "we don't recognize politicians or debt from rebellions."
- helpfulclippy 4y ago
  Basically, Roe’s logic goes like this: The 14th amendment gives everyone equal protection of the law, including from their state governments. SCOTUS historically took that to mean that there are federal restrictions on state law. A few relevant to the history of Roe: - States are bound by the bill of rights (eg. they can’t violate your free speech for instance) - States can’t tell you where your kid has to go to school, or what they can or can’t study - States can’t restrict access to contraceptives Since the 9th amendment acknowledges the existence of rights NOT enumerated in the constitution, the court decided that it has to look at rights that are historical and customary, or contained in the “penumbra” of enumerated rights. Since you have a right to be safe from searches and seizures, and to be free from having the government quarter troops in your home, and whatever unenumerated rights exist, they’d several years prior agreed includes “marital privacy” to protect couples’ rights to choose whether to use birth control. Shortly thereafter in Roe they decided that women have a right to choose to get an abortion prior to the first trimester. They chose that cutoff based on historical and customary treatment of abortion in English common law as well as older western legal traditions. That’s a pretty brief summary, but that’s how they got there.
honkdaddy 4y ago
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That's the one people use, right?
betwixthewires 4y ago
I am aware, but anybody that takes even a cursory look at it knows that it was "legislating from the bench" as it were. And you might be OK with that, you might be happy about it because you think abortion should be enumerated. But it is plain as day that it isn't, and doesn't fall within the scope of any enumerated right, or within the direct purview of the federal government and therefore outside of that of the states.

davedx 4y ago

You're missing the article's point: it's not about whether abortion should be legal or not. It's that encryption should be strongly protected because it protects people from unjust laws.

lliamander 4y ago
Yeah, but why even bring abortion up? It was a bad segway.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  For future reference, segway is a mobile transportation device used and beloved by Paul Blart, mall cop. Segue (same pronunciation, Italian origination) is an uninterrupted transition.
  - dancemethis 4y ago
    I never understood why it stopped being called "The Thing".
- snickerbockers 4y ago
  because otherwise nobody would've clicked on the link.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Because (as argued I'm the article), it is generally assumed by most people (or, at least say, most tech workers) in the US that our laws are, generally, "good". That is, unlike, say, laws in China or Saudi Arabia, most tech workers would be OK with a lawful, court-ordered data request from a US jurisdiction. (Related - yes, of course I realize that there are some laws, maybe even many laws, that some people very strongly disagree with, but in balance, I think most people think data requests in the US are to solve "unambiguous" crimes like assault, theft, murder, child abuse, etc.). With abortion, though, that assumption goes out the window. Many people, especially tech workers in coastal states, strongly believe that laws criminalizing abortion are downright evil. This would be a huge shift in that, for the first time, many of these folks could be convinced that protection from sharing data with the state, even one you think has generally "good" laws, because the idea to share data to prosecute someone for aiding an abortion is so deeply abhorrent to them. For these folks, it's likely this is the first time that the importance of strong encryption will "click" for them, due to them feeling like this is a clear case where legal requests from US law enforcement are unambiguously wrong.

iroei9j 4y ago

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Founders covered this in their writings. The defined rights were not to be considered the extent of the rights afforded the people. They worried about including a specific Bill of Rights as it would lead to belief rights were indeed limited to the things they included. A right to one’s own bodily agency, to discuss and engage in medical discourse and behaviors, is not explicitly called out in the Bill of Rights but it’s also not explicitly denied. The court uses that logic constantly when it empowers elites. I think it’s pretty obvious America is done for since the people themselves believe now the powers that be can police their speech and agency in private settings when it’s merely what they don’t agree with.