6 ms·
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 iro
by 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 agoThe first amendment protects speech. Code is speech. E2EE is code. Therefore, the first amendment protects E2EE.
- vacuity 3y agoI 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 agoHaving the right to build a dragster car in your garage doesn't imply being allowed to drive on public roads with it.