5 ms·

I 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 an

I 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 ago
Encryption 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 ago
  Encryption is not a weapon of mass destruction. I can’t point encryption at you and end your life.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    It'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 ago
      Nukes 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 But societal norms and expectations (the culture) have now superseded the Constitution, and amending it isn't necessary.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 ago
        I'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 ago
        How 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 ago
  Encryption 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 ago
    There 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 ago
      Correct. I believe New York has, or is attempting to, ban body armor.
    - somerandomqaguy 4y ago
      In 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 ago
  There really is an XKCD for everything. I love it.
sirsinsalot 4y ago
Given 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 ago
  Europeans and the redistribution of consequences, they go together like bread and butter.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  It is a perfect example. Guns are sometimes used for bad things just like encryption. Encryption, just like guns, are a right regardless.
  - sirsinsalot 4y ago
    My point is, guns are not a good example of "bad things happen rarely when people have things capable or badness"
    - seanw444 4y ago
      That 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 ago
  For 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.

notch898a 4y ago

Encryption 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 ago
Encryption is not a weapon of mass destruction. I can’t point encryption at you and end your life.
- notch898a 4y ago
  It'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 ago
    Nukes 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 ago
      I'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 ago
        How 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 ago
Encryption 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 ago
  There 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 ago
    Correct. I believe New York has, or is attempting to, ban body armor.
  - somerandomqaguy 4y ago
    In 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 ago
There really is an XKCD for everything. I love it.

sirsinsalot 4y ago

Given 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 ago
Europeans and the redistribution of consequences, they go together like bread and butter.
_-david-_ 4y ago
It is a perfect example. Guns are sometimes used for bad things just like encryption. Encryption, just like guns, are a right regardless.
- sirsinsalot 4y ago
  My point is, guns are not a good example of "bad things happen rarely when people have things capable or badness"
  - seanw444 4y ago
    That 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 ago
For 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.