3 ms·

That's why you use a constitution strong enough to prevent the government from having authority to ban a tool like that. The solution's been known and described

That's why you use a constitution strong enough to prevent the government from having authority to ban a tool like that. The solution's been known and described for 250+ years now.

mschuster91 3y ago
The problem is, if you rely on tools - and a constitution is nothing else than a tool - you will end up developing a reliance on that tool. And all of a sudden, that tool breaks, and you're fucked. Democracy must be fought for every single day, and for that matter so does all progress. Democracy isn't something a society automatically converges to and which everyone loves, it must actively be maintained or someone will come, sow mistrust and preach "easy" solutions - and then you wake up and your country isn't a democracy any more.
vacuity 3y ago
The US Constitution certainly isn't modern or flexible enough to definitively protect (users of) E2EE. There are arguments for their protection, but none is ironclad (like "this is speech that is protected" ironclad). I'm not saying the Bill of Rights was wrong in its time period, but it would be more appropriate to lay out fundamental principles that must be upheld, and protection for E2EE (users) could then be derived. There's some of that already, but not in a clear and comprehensive manner.
- I_am_uncreative 3y ago
  The first amendment protects speech. Code is speech. E2EE is code. Therefore, the first amendment protects E2EE.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    I forgot about that argument. I think it's not ironclad because "code is speech" seems like a stretch to me. I guess I'm being a bit unfair; when I say I want ironclad principles, I mean the kind that you can interpret literally and deduce whatever correctly. Admittedly harder to do.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    Having the right to build a dragster car in your garage doesn't imply being allowed to drive on public roads with it.
theossuary 3y ago
That's silly. A constitution is just a piece of paper. It has no inherent power. It's the institutions put in place to enforce the constitution that give it power. If those institutions rot, the constitution will not protect you. As we've seen time and again.
pixl97 3y ago
A constitution is a piece of paper. At the end of the day, especially in a representative democracy is it's people. If the people drifting towards authoritarianism in mass, they will gladly wrap that piece of paper around a stick, light it on fire, and impale you with it all while claiming their new king.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Constitution is nothing but paper. What stops the government from just ignoring it? Happened in my country. Supreme court started censoring people despite the fact it's unconstitutional. Police follows their orders so whatever they write on documents is law. A literal judiciary dictatorship was silently installed and nobody even acknowledged it. This is why you should never allow them to disarm you. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the threat of deadly force. The government should be in a state of permanent existential dread, its power always threatened by the population.

That's why you use a constitution strong enough to prevent the government from having authority to ban a tool like that. The solution's been known and described for 250+ years now.

mschuster91 3y ago

The problem is, if you rely on tools - and a constitution is nothing else than a tool - you will end up developing a reliance on that tool. And all of a sudden, that tool breaks, and you're fucked. Democracy must be fought for every single day, and for that matter so does all progress. Democracy isn't something a society automatically converges to and which everyone loves, it must actively be maintained or someone will come, sow mistrust and preach "easy" solutions - and then you wake up and your country isn't a democracy any more.

vacuity 3y ago

The US Constitution certainly isn't modern or flexible enough to definitively protect (users of) E2EE. There are arguments for their protection, but none is ironclad (like "this is speech that is protected" ironclad). I'm not saying the Bill of Rights was wrong in its time period, but it would be more appropriate to lay out fundamental principles that must be upheld, and protection for E2EE (users) could then be derived. There's some of that already, but not in a clear and comprehensive manner.

I_am_uncreative 3y ago
The first amendment protects speech. Code is speech. E2EE is code. Therefore, the first amendment protects E2EE.
- vacuity 3y ago
  I forgot about that argument. I think it's not ironclad because "code is speech" seems like a stretch to me. I guess I'm being a bit unfair; when I say I want ironclad principles, I mean the kind that you can interpret literally and deduce whatever correctly. Admittedly harder to do.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Having the right to build a dragster car in your garage doesn't imply being allowed to drive on public roads with it.

theossuary 3y ago

That's silly. A constitution is just a piece of paper. It has no inherent power. It's the institutions put in place to enforce the constitution that give it power. If those institutions rot, the constitution will not protect you. As we've seen time and again.

pixl97 3y ago

A constitution is a piece of paper. At the end of the day, especially in a representative democracy is it's people. If the people drifting towards authoritarianism in mass, they will gladly wrap that piece of paper around a stick, light it on fire, and impale you with it all while claiming their new king.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Constitution is nothing but paper. What stops the government from just ignoring it? Happened in my country. Supreme court started censoring people despite the fact it's unconstitutional. Police follows their orders so whatever they write on documents is law. A literal judiciary dictatorship was silently installed and nobody even acknowledged it. This is why you should never allow them to disarm you. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the threat of deadly force. The government should be in a state of permanent existential dread, its power always threatened by the population.