4 ms·

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 reasona

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 But societal norms and expectations (the culture) have now superseded the Constitution, and amending it isn't necessary.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.
    - radlad 4y ago
      I don't think that's right. There are many exceptions to the 2A, such as the classic example of a sawed off shotgun. [1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22not+unlimited%22&pg=PA396#v=snippet&q=heller%20%22not%20unlimited%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22n... edit to add - per [1] above, 18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861 specifically prohibits "KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE [...] E. Destructive device" which is defined as: > A “destructive device” includes any explosive, incendiary or poison gas --- (i)bomb; (ii) grenade or (iii) similar device, or any combination of parts designed or intended to be converted into a destructive device, or from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. Does not include black powder or antique type firearms. 18 USC §921(3).
      - notch898a 4y ago
        The highlight sentences text of [2] talked about WHO was banned from owning arms, not what. [1] Is just so bad I'm pretty sure it was written by a drunk child (admittedly the intelligence level of most government employees), I would not trust this document AT ALL. It's egregiously wrong. You can own sawed off shotguns with a tax stamp (in fact it was written in law as a tax because they thought they had no constitutional right to ban them). It also says idiotic things like you can't own a gun without a serial number (WTF, a ton of early 20th century guns don't even have these). Now I know some of you will say "but notch, if you have to get a stamp it's a privilege not a right." And I'll explain to you why that's wrong. If you're allowed to have it, they have to give you the stamp. If you're not? Oh you're gonna love this -- if you're not THEN THEY CAN'T PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT HAVING THE STAMP. Self incrimination. That's right, if you're a criminal you don't legally need the stamp! Only law abiding people have to get it, and hey if you don't theyll just make you a felon so you don't have to get it the next time! It also uses "transported across strate line" to establish federal jurisdiction which is just straight up 100% wrong, it doesn't need to do that as feds will happily prosecute an item even DIY made in the same state (see conviction of kettler). I actually lost track because it seemed like almost everything I read there was wrong. I hope whoever wrote that has a nice job collecting quarters from the parking meters or something now, because I wouldn't trust them with much else. Note: this is entertainment and not legal advice. Seek a lawyer before acting in your own individual circumstance.
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

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.
  - radlad 4y ago
    I don't think that's right. There are many exceptions to the 2A, such as the classic example of a sawed off shotgun. [1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22not+unlimited%22&pg=PA396#v=snippet&q=heller%20%22not%20unlimited%22&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22n... edit to add - per [1] above, 18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861 specifically prohibits "KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE [...] E. Destructive device" which is defined as: > A “destructive device” includes any explosive, incendiary or poison gas --- (i)bomb; (ii) grenade or (iii) similar device, or any combination of parts designed or intended to be converted into a destructive device, or from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. Does not include black powder or antique type firearms. 18 USC §921(3).
    - notch898a 4y ago
      The highlight sentences text of [2] talked about WHO was banned from owning arms, not what. [1] Is just so bad I'm pretty sure it was written by a drunk child (admittedly the intelligence level of most government employees), I would not trust this document AT ALL. It's egregiously wrong. You can own sawed off shotguns with a tax stamp (in fact it was written in law as a tax because they thought they had no constitutional right to ban them). It also says idiotic things like you can't own a gun without a serial number (WTF, a ton of early 20th century guns don't even have these). Now I know some of you will say "but notch, if you have to get a stamp it's a privilege not a right." And I'll explain to you why that's wrong. If you're allowed to have it, they have to give you the stamp. If you're not? Oh you're gonna love this -- if you're not THEN THEY CAN'T PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT HAVING THE STAMP. Self incrimination. That's right, if you're a criminal you don't legally need the stamp! Only law abiding people have to get it, and hey if you don't theyll just make you a felon so you don't have to get it the next time! It also uses "transported across strate line" to establish federal jurisdiction which is just straight up 100% wrong, it doesn't need to do that as feds will happily prosecute an item even DIY made in the same state (see conviction of kettler). I actually lost track because it seemed like almost everything I read there was wrong. I hope whoever wrote that has a nice job collecting quarters from the parking meters or something now, because I wouldn't trust them with much else. Note: this is entertainment and not legal advice. Seek a lawyer before acting in your own individual circumstance.

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