10 ms·
Bills like this keep coming back. Can we instead look to pass the opposite? A bill that marks the right to use private encryption as a fundamental right? Is t
by SimonPStevens 4y ago
Bills like this keep coming back.
Can we instead look to pass the opposite? A bill that marks the right to use private encryption as a fundamental right?
Is that kind of thing possible?
Where or how would I support such an activity?
- NikkiA 4y ago> Is that kind of thing possible? Not in the UK because of parliamentry authority, no. A law cannot be made that binds future parliament from being able to undo it, thus 'fundamental rights' cannot be legislated.
- seanw444 4y agoI treat it as an arm. I wield it for defensive purposes the same way I concealed carry for defensive purposes. And in the US, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. At least in theory.
- notch898a 4y agoEncryption is far more dangerous than a gun, it's more like a nuke. You can't individually bypass the entire US or UK government with a gun but you can reasonably expect to do it with strong encryption executed well. You could use the same hocus-pocus people use to explain why say a surface to air missile isn't "arms" to explain why encryption isn't "speech", and honestly it'd probably be easier to do with the latter.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- l33t233372 4y agoEncryption is not a weapon of mass destruction. I can’t point encryption at you and end your life.
- notch898a 4y agoIt's an analogy. I readily acknowledge one doesn't directly die from speech (of course both speech and guns can be instrumental in killing). gun:nuke plaintext:encrypted If nukes, which are arms, can be banned under 2A -- why can't encrypted speech be banned under the 1A? I mean hell the 1A can even ban materials of 'prurient interest' which as far as I can tell a picture of a naked woman isn't going directly to kill anyone either.
- seanw444 4y agoNukes can't be banned in the current state of the 2A. But societal norms and expectations (the culture) have now superseded the Constitution, and amending it isn't necessary.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoI'm sorry, but let me get this straight. You're implying that 18 U.S. Code § 832[1] is unconstitutional? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832
- ninjagoo 4y ago> You're implying that 18 U.S. Code § 832[1] is unconstitutional? That reads as applying when providing nuclear support to a foreign terrorist power. Technically not incompatible with OP's interpretation, which would presumably be for domestic use.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoHow it is compatible with "shall not be infringed"? It sounds like an infringement.
- notch898a 4y ago(a) seems likely constitutional as it appears to only restrict those who are not the people inside the united states from bearing nukes. It is "an infringement" but not one of the ability of "the people" of the United States to keep and bear nukes. (c) I would argue, from a strict reading of the constitution, is unconstitutional as it bans mere possession domestically of nukes. I could be misreading that section though. IMO there really should be constitutional amendment of the second to clearly ban nukes and possibly some other WMDs. As a bonus once all that stuff is spelled out it will give a lot less ammunition for people to hold the second amendment hostage by saying "well we have to interpret it creatively because we'll all be living on a radioactive sheet of glass if we don't." note: entertainment and not legal advice side note: Domestically people designated to be "terrorists" can legally buy and be sold arms (see the terrorist screening center list and TSC no-fly list, the people on there can buy guns inside the US if not otherwise prohibited persons). That is someone on the terrorist list at the TSC can walk into a gun store and pass the background check no problem, and be sold a gun domestically.
- xboxnolifes 4y agoEncryption is less a nuke and more an impenetrable bunker. I can't drop encryption on someone and kill them, but it can keep people safe.
- Cyphase 4y agoThere are, and there is ongoing discussion of, body armor bans. Apologies, don't have time to cite sources now, but you can do a search and find things.
- seanw444 4y agoCorrect. I believe New York has, or is attempting to, ban body armor.
- somerandomqaguy 4y agoIn Canada, the provinces of Alberta and BC require a permit to purchase and wear body armor. That said for Alberta the law only came into force in 2015 or so. Before AFAIK there were no restrictions. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/09024_01 https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/stat... https://open.alberta.ca/publications/b04p8 https://open.alberta.ca/publications/b04p8
- kmeisthax 4y ago"Once they get complacent, we bust out the 2nd Amendment." https://xkcd.com/504/ https://xkcd.com/504/
- seanw444 4y agoThere really is an XKCD for everything. I love it.
- sirsinsalot 4y agoGiven the murder rate, mass shooting rate, incarceration per capita and domestic violence involving firearms in the US ... I'm not sure drawing that parallel is as convincing an argument for safeguarding encryption as you think.
- alphanullmeric 4y agoEuropeans and the redistribution of consequences, they go together like bread and butter.
- _-david-_ 4y agoIt is a perfect example. Guns are sometimes used for bad things just like encryption. Encryption, just like guns, are a right regardless.
- sirsinsalot 4y agoMy point is, guns are not a good example of "bad things happen rarely when people have things capable or badness"
- seanw444 4y agoThat wasn't the point anyways. Bad things happen a lot regardless of if the tools are available. The point is that you should be able to stop it with equal capability, not be intentionally handicapped.
- sirsinsalot 4y agoFor the avoidance of doubt, my point isn't that the parallel drawn is poor ... just that if we're selling the idea of "good outweighs the potential bad" then guns are not a good example for selling that angle.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI'm not sure about the UK but the US has the 4th Amendment to the Constitution which theoretically[0] provides this sort of protection. [0] Unfortunately, only in theory considering how often attacks against that protection are made by US policymakers.
- kmeisthax 4y agoAfter Dobbs v. Jackson I'm not so sure on the implied right of privacy anymore, given that such a right was the foundation of Roe v. Wade.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI believe the defendant in that case argued with the 14th amendment: > (1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Edit: I guess it's actually both. > Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
- jasonfarnon 4y agothe "right to privacy" has nothing to do with the search and seizure-type privacy right. the first is a warren court-era development, patched together from due process, "penumbrae" etc., the second is grounded in the 4th amendment.
- idiotsecant 4y agoEveryone's a strict constructionist until they get to the part of the constitution they don't like. Fundamentally if we're ok with weakening some amendments through interpretation short of constitutional convention we should resign ourselves to the idea that we are weakening all of them.
- notch898a 4y ago
- akomtu 4y agoThat would mean you have more power than the house of lords that runs the country. And if you had so much power, it would beg the question why they own all the land and you own none. In practice it takes a "humble king" to create freedom: someone strong enough to rule, but humble enough to give up that power to an elected senate.
- notch898a 4y ago95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control. Some people would be shocked to see who wrote that, but he had a point. It's not the humble king, it's the ineffective king that breeds freedom.
- idiotsecant 4y agoyes, sometime brutal, insane murderers can be right. But they're still brutal, insane murderers. Not saying that you're making any other point, but this particular case hits home for me and worship of this particular piece of slime is rife in these kinds of threads.
- notch898a 4y agoI don't like the guy, he's just one of the few people that have articulated the point succinctly in modern English. I'm open to other authors / quotes. I mean I discuss the writings of haber creating the haber-basch process too, but I think it'd be weird for people to constantly point out how that's improper to cite a guy who spent much of his time creating and distributing chemical weapons.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nine_k 4y agoI love the Orwellian spin on the name. War is peace. Snooping is safety.
- tguvot 4y agoSupporting this type of activity(and other types) was discussed back in 2010: https://www.theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-lobbyist-to-push-inte-1819571821 https://www.theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-l...
- H4ZB7 4y agothe fact that such a proposal can even fly shows how broken every country is. none of them care the slightest about the freedom they so boast. banning encryption makes absolutely no sense, it's like banning whispering. or banning having a conversation and not going and writing it down after in case a police needs to audit it. the literal only reason it makes sense is when you watch a hollywood movie and you think encryption actually means something else like firing missiles. the problem is there are about 100x too many unneeded people in justice, and on top of that its half controlled by corpos who think you should go to jail for 100 years for bypassing [1] their copyright protection to decrease their losses by 0.0000000000001%, all while being a CURRENT_YEAR dogshit company like LG or Samsung or EA or Epic that produces absolutely nothing of value but has large capital 1. again, one of their key reasoning points is always that they saw a hollywood movie and they think copy protection circumvention means something else like being a ninja running into a building and quickly killing 3 people with a katana
- hackererror404 4y agoIt's far too easy to sell the common person on "bad people bad". Explaining to the common person why they should care about encryption and how bad people can and will exploit any hole in that encryption is far more nuanced.
- notch898a 4y agoCommon person doesn't need to be sold, just told to follow the rule and as long as the food drink gasoline keeps coming they'll follow the orders.
- thinking4real 4y ago[dead]
- wrycoder 4y agoJust keep voting until you win. Then you stop.
- developer93 4y agoTakes a bit more than voting I'm afraid. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
- EarlKing 4y agoThere are no fundamental rights in the UK, just privileges contingent on the blessings of His Majesty's government. This is why America fought a war of independence against them.