7 ms·

There's a case to be made that encryption/private communication has gone through the same sort of progress as personal weaponry has, only on a much shorter time

There's a case to be made that encryption/private communication has gone through the same sort of progress as personal weaponry has, only on a much shorter time frame and to a much greater extent. In weaponry, it's taken ~200 years to go from bespoke muskets with a firing rate of a couple rounds per minute to semi-automatic and automatic weapons capable of firing multiple rounds per second. In just the last 20-30 years we've gone from "if the government wants to know your speech, they are a warrant(-ish) away from getting it" to "as long as you don't make a mistake, no one will ever know what you said." To be clear, I'm not advocating for encryption restrictions. I'm just saying that almost no one advocates for the 2nd amendment right to a bazooka, and it could reasonably be argued that a bazooka isn't remotely equivalent to the present ability of just about anyone to conceal their speech.

komali2 3y ago
> I'm just saying that almost no one advocates for the 2nd amendment right to a bazooka This isn't necessarily true. To believe that the 2nd amendment allows the right to carry a concealed weapon basically anywhere sort of requires one to believe every citizen has the right to carry any weapon. The amendment is meant to indicate that congress simply can't regulate whether citizens choose to own and carry around weapons, and what sort of weapons those might be. If the weapon could be considered an "arm," it can't be regulated. This is one of the obvious modern flaws with the USA constitution and why the 2nd amendment should be abolished before any reasonable gun control can happen in the USA. Kavanaugh and other justices right now seem to think that there are "of course" conditions and restrictions that should be allowed, like not carrying guns into "sensitive places" or not allowing felons to have guns, but a future justice can simply disagree, and that's that. Also, many people in the USA believe they should be allowed to have a bazooka.
- catiopatio 3y ago
  I absolutely believe I should be able to own a bazooka, and that the second and first amendments are equally critical for a free state. People use exactly the same arguments you’re making to justify speech restrictions. It’s my belief that there’s an underlying social pathology wherein some people are happy to hand power to the state in order to feel safe, regardless of the ultimate consequences, whether we’re discussing arms or speech or any other fundamental right.
  - komali2 3y ago
    The alternate social pathology is maintaining some kind of illusion of ability to resist a fascist government with weapons a previous more liberal government allowed you to have. If the government recedes to a level of totalitarianism wherein you must use your guns to protect your way of life, there's been absolute failures on uncountable levels, and guns won't fix anything. If you threaten to use your gun to destabilize the authoritarian government, they have five hundred ways to kill you easily from a distance. "But guerrilla warfare!" If you're stockpiling guns so as to be one day be a guerrilla, why not instead just take action now to prevent your government becoming that way, by voting for more progressive leaders, participating in protests, and engaging in civil disobedience and disruption? I don't disagree with the general idea of restricting the ability of government to control personal freedoms to a certain degree, but it doesn't make any sense to me why we like to use the government to regulate what companies are allowed to put in the food they sell us, but not regulate what kind of guns our neighbors can own.
  - jabradoodle 3y ago
    You can't blow my house up with free speech. Also free states exist outside of the USA, so clearly those amendments are not a prerequisite of freedom. I also wouldn't call it a pathology in the average case, not unless you believe there is no use for law, courts, police etc, and are a proponent of anarchy.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  Hence why I said "almost" no one. I'd bet a dollar that the number of people arguing for free ownership of bazookas is low-single-digits of a percent of the population. But I'd love to see hard numbers on that :-)
soulofmischief 3y ago
No one, not my mother, not my government, not my dog, has the implicit right to monitor a conversation between myself and another party No one has the right to dictate the manner in which I communicate with another individual, contending that it doesn't cause network problems (such as the FCC and radio band restrictions. And to the point, I believe the ban of cryptographic communication on public radio channels to be unlawful and unethical) I knew absolutely no privacy during most of my childhood. Many times I did not even have a door to my room. Every single bit of privacy I did attain was an act of defiance. Even owning an email address was against the rules of my household, but if I hadn't protected my right to do so and to conceal the act of doing so, I wouldn't be here today as an engineer discussing the merits of privacy on the internet with you. God forbid what an entire organization of narcissists and control freaks can accomplish when given legal blessing. As an aside, you might find it interesting that cryptography was actually classified as munitions in the United States at one point, so the analogy does have merit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
- gorgoiler 3y ago
  I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant. If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    The crucial underpinning of this ideology is that We The People have given explicit permission to a specific group of individuals to have this power in exchange for freedoms we could not otherwise attain; rarely can something in life be so pure, a balance usually must be struck when considering such a complex system. In the US, we employed a three-party checks and balances system to try to solve this problem in a more distributed manner. Obviously there might be unsolved issues around a) preventing such a system from decaying over time and b) providing some sort of mechanism for people born into a governing society they do not agree with to travel to another society without unachievable economic hurdles. This of course too has limits. I do differ with you in that I do not believe another entity has the right to compel anyone to do anything. The judge can take my phone, but if it's locked, I cannot be compelled to produce a password. This is established by the fifth amendment, but would probably be better formalized today in a new constitution.
asynchronous 3y ago
I’d disagree with you on that last point. Some of us think the 2A is about private ownership of tanks.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  The second amendment is all that is left of a philosophy about how the national defense should be done. Originally the intent was that there would be no standing army because it would be too dangerous to democracy. In cases of emergency the militia (armed citizens) would be called upon to defend the nation. It would make perfect sense to have all the necessities for fighting a defensive war in private hands.
  - WeylandYutani 3y ago
    Even second amendment supporting politicians don't want the public to have access to high powered sniper rifles and plastic explosives. One thing that always amused me to death is how firearms are banned from the Republican convention.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Odd example, only a small handful of states restrict 50 BMG rifles e.g. "high powered sniper rifles", and basically none restrict the normal sort of rifles that would normally be used by snipers. You can even go over 50 calibre with a background check and a tax stamp. Even with plastic explosives, basically anybody who isn't a fugitive, convicted felon or a drug user is allowed to get a federal license for explosives.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  I was wondering if I'd get this argument :-) I guess it comes down to how you define "arms" and I'm not a constitutional scholar. So: you do you, enjoy your tank :-) And if you haven't seen it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(film)
Buttons840 3y ago
> In just the last 20-30 years we've gone from "if the government wants to know your speech, they are a warrant(-ish) away from getting it" Couldn't people just talk quietly and nobody would ever know what they said to each other? Humanity has survived how long under this condition?
- didntcheck 3y ago
  To be fair, it was still hard to hide "metadata". If you met someone in person, or sent a letter, then it would be hard to conceal that from someone surveiling you The difference was they had to be actively targeting you beforehand, and it was an ongoing high expense per target. Now we bulk collect data on the basis that someone might be guilty in the future
- gcanyon 3y ago
  Wire-tapping is a thing. Sensitive microphones are a thing. "The Thing" is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    Again, you act like not being able to wire-tap is a new thing. How long did humanity survive without wires? The ability to have a private conversation that remains a secret forever is a fundamental human right that goes back a hundred thousand years.
    - gcanyon 3y ago
      I'm not sure we agree on the definition of "fundamental human right" -- are you using it to mean "an aspect of fundamental reality"?
XorNot 3y ago
I'm real uncomfortable with comparing kinetic weaponry to communications encryption. These aren't even remotely similar things in damage scope. The argument in favor of private communications is in fact predicated on this: no one can actually cause damage just by communicating. Damage might happen as a result of it, but there is no information so dangerous that the transmission of it must be known up front, and should be pre-emptively scanned for and alerted on. There is always a chain of additional activities and actions which is required for harm to eventuate.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  Not only only that, there is something so intrinsically human about communication, and something so vulnerable about having every word archived. How does it go? "Give me a sentence from and honest man and I'll find a way to hang him?" or something. To be clear, I 100% believe that self defense is also intrinsic to being a mobile animal, and everyone has the right to be their own first line of self defense. But most people go their entire lives without needing to defend their self, but nobody goes more than a few days without needing to communicate with someone, often somewhat intimately. The amount of words someone generates is staggering, and if archived arbitrarily, can almost certainly be used against them.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Eh, I've never much cared for that quote or the common interpretation of it. People take it as though the problem is the surveillance. But it's the last part which tells you what's up: "I'll find a way to hang him". The speaker is telling you what they're going to do - everything else is a formality. Your problem began well before they had a sentence, and wouldn't end if they didn't have one.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      A malicious, unlawful actor should be denied all methods of acting out their purpose, as long as it doesn't hurt lawful actors more than they are willing to accept.
  - 3y ago
ctoth 3y ago
Actually, I believe you have this backwards. In the time when the Constitution was written, conversations were private (concealed) by default. In order to listen to a conversation, you had to physically listen to the conversation. It is only in the last couple decades that mass access to this sort of conversation is even possible, so encryption seems to be restoring the same implicit right which always existed. Said another way, if you want to analogize e2e encryption to a bazooka, then the government being able to read all of your private communications seems to be the equivalent of having someone constantly violating the fourth (remember that one?) amendment in your house, 24/7.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  Sure, technology has benefitted the government as well. But if you're going to cite the fact that 250 years ago surveillance required live eavesdropping, then the weapon analogy needs to go back to the time before guns and other range weapons, when you had to physically shove in the pointy bit. In any case, my point was about the ability of civilians to conceal, surveillance is only relevant in its inability to keep up. To your main point, it's important to understand that most people don't feel the need to conceal their conversations from the government. Note: this is not an "if you're not doing crime, what do you need to hide?" argument. I'm just stating the fact that the reason the government can surveil so much information is because people don't choose to encrypt their communications. If they did, the government would have access to very little. Until/unless they set up cameras and microphones everywhere.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
Your argument is complete nonsense. It has never been easier for the government to access your speech because never before has such a large portion of speech been recorded. Police 30 years ago would kill for the data they have access to now. Encryption slightly slows down how quickly the amount of information they have access to is growing, but it can't remotely complete with how quickly the amount of available information is growing.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  As I replied to someone else, it's important to understand that the only reason the government can surveil so much information is because people don't bother to encrypt their communications. If they did, the government would have access to very little, because government-resistant is readily available.
brnt 3y ago
> personal weaponry It's really only just the US being an outlier here. There's no other western country where people think it's normal or a fundamental right to carry automatic weaponry. I therefore cannot see the comparison to encrypted communication. Everyone communicates, increasingly through software. To keep things that once were private private, encryption is a key ingredient.
- catiopatio 3y ago
  There’s also no other western country with anything nearly as strong as the first amendment. Not sure what your point is. (Also, the production of new automatic weapons for the civilian market has been illegal since 1986, and civilian ownership of automatic weapons is heavily regulated).
  - brnt 3y ago
    The point is that it's a comparison that holds only in a tiny part of the world, which means to comparison is meaningless.
cmiles74 3y ago
In my opinion, the comparison to weaponry is pretty loaded and unreasonable. It evokes scenes of mass shootings, secure communication has no similar destructive power. Warrants are still a thing! The government in the US can still get a warrant and they can compel you to show them the contents of your Signal messages. No fancy E2E backdoors are required. ;-)
- catiopatio 3y ago
  Unfortunately, it’s not a fringe opinion that speech is similarly dangerous and should be similarly regulated. It’s also not clear that the US government can compel you to reveal a password, much less compel you to incriminate yourself.
  - cmiles74 3y ago
    I'm having trouble finding coverage in this, but I believe the current state is that the warrant can require you to unlock the phone but you don't have to tell them how or provide your password. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/11/29/fbi-no-consent-required-for-forced-phone-unlocks-via-finger-or-face https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/11/29/fbi-n... https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-should-not-be-allowed-to-compel-our-cell-phone-passwords https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-should-n...
pard68 3y ago
I wouldn't mind a bazooka.
tristor 3y ago
Encryption isn't weaponry, and the fact that the government continues to try to behave like it is (ITAR, et al) is heinous, stupid, and oppressive.

komali2 3y ago

> I'm just saying that almost no one advocates for the 2nd amendment right to a bazooka This isn't necessarily true. To believe that the 2nd amendment allows the right to carry a concealed weapon basically anywhere sort of requires one to believe every citizen has the right to carry any weapon. The amendment is meant to indicate that congress simply can't regulate whether citizens choose to own and carry around weapons, and what sort of weapons those might be. If the weapon could be considered an "arm," it can't be regulated. This is one of the obvious modern flaws with the USA constitution and why the 2nd amendment should be abolished before any reasonable gun control can happen in the USA. Kavanaugh and other justices right now seem to think that there are "of course" conditions and restrictions that should be allowed, like not carrying guns into "sensitive places" or not allowing felons to have guns, but a future justice can simply disagree, and that's that. Also, many people in the USA believe they should be allowed to have a bazooka.

catiopatio 3y ago
I absolutely believe I should be able to own a bazooka, and that the second and first amendments are equally critical for a free state. People use exactly the same arguments you’re making to justify speech restrictions. It’s my belief that there’s an underlying social pathology wherein some people are happy to hand power to the state in order to feel safe, regardless of the ultimate consequences, whether we’re discussing arms or speech or any other fundamental right.
- komali2 3y ago
  The alternate social pathology is maintaining some kind of illusion of ability to resist a fascist government with weapons a previous more liberal government allowed you to have. If the government recedes to a level of totalitarianism wherein you must use your guns to protect your way of life, there's been absolute failures on uncountable levels, and guns won't fix anything. If you threaten to use your gun to destabilize the authoritarian government, they have five hundred ways to kill you easily from a distance. "But guerrilla warfare!" If you're stockpiling guns so as to be one day be a guerrilla, why not instead just take action now to prevent your government becoming that way, by voting for more progressive leaders, participating in protests, and engaging in civil disobedience and disruption? I don't disagree with the general idea of restricting the ability of government to control personal freedoms to a certain degree, but it doesn't make any sense to me why we like to use the government to regulate what companies are allowed to put in the food they sell us, but not regulate what kind of guns our neighbors can own.
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  You can't blow my house up with free speech. Also free states exist outside of the USA, so clearly those amendments are not a prerequisite of freedom. I also wouldn't call it a pathology in the average case, not unless you believe there is no use for law, courts, police etc, and are a proponent of anarchy.
gcanyon 3y ago
Hence why I said "almost" no one. I'd bet a dollar that the number of people arguing for free ownership of bazookas is low-single-digits of a percent of the population. But I'd love to see hard numbers on that :-)

soulofmischief 3y ago

No one, not my mother, not my government, not my dog, has the implicit right to monitor a conversation between myself and another party No one has the right to dictate the manner in which I communicate with another individual, contending that it doesn't cause network problems (such as the FCC and radio band restrictions. And to the point, I believe the ban of cryptographic communication on public radio channels to be unlawful and unethical) I knew absolutely no privacy during most of my childhood. Many times I did not even have a door to my room. Every single bit of privacy I did attain was an act of defiance. Even owning an email address was against the rules of my household, but if I hadn't protected my right to do so and to conceal the act of doing so, I wouldn't be here today as an engineer discussing the merits of privacy on the internet with you. God forbid what an entire organization of narcissists and control freaks can accomplish when given legal blessing. As an aside, you might find it interesting that cryptography was actually classified as munitions in the United States at one point, so the analogy does have merit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

gorgoiler 3y ago
I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant. If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  The crucial underpinning of this ideology is that We The People have given explicit permission to a specific group of individuals to have this power in exchange for freedoms we could not otherwise attain; rarely can something in life be so pure, a balance usually must be struck when considering such a complex system. In the US, we employed a three-party checks and balances system to try to solve this problem in a more distributed manner. Obviously there might be unsolved issues around a) preventing such a system from decaying over time and b) providing some sort of mechanism for people born into a governing society they do not agree with to travel to another society without unachievable economic hurdles. This of course too has limits. I do differ with you in that I do not believe another entity has the right to compel anyone to do anything. The judge can take my phone, but if it's locked, I cannot be compelled to produce a password. This is established by the fifth amendment, but would probably be better formalized today in a new constitution.

asynchronous 3y ago

I’d disagree with you on that last point. Some of us think the 2A is about private ownership of tanks.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
The second amendment is all that is left of a philosophy about how the national defense should be done. Originally the intent was that there would be no standing army because it would be too dangerous to democracy. In cases of emergency the militia (armed citizens) would be called upon to defend the nation. It would make perfect sense to have all the necessities for fighting a defensive war in private hands.
- WeylandYutani 3y ago
  Even second amendment supporting politicians don't want the public to have access to high powered sniper rifles and plastic explosives. One thing that always amused me to death is how firearms are banned from the Republican convention.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Odd example, only a small handful of states restrict 50 BMG rifles e.g. "high powered sniper rifles", and basically none restrict the normal sort of rifles that would normally be used by snipers. You can even go over 50 calibre with a background check and a tax stamp. Even with plastic explosives, basically anybody who isn't a fugitive, convicted felon or a drug user is allowed to get a federal license for explosives.
gcanyon 3y ago
I was wondering if I'd get this argument :-) I guess it comes down to how you define "arms" and I'm not a constitutional scholar. So: you do you, enjoy your tank :-) And if you haven't seen it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(film)

Buttons840 3y ago

> In just the last 20-30 years we've gone from "if the government wants to know your speech, they are a warrant(-ish) away from getting it" Couldn't people just talk quietly and nobody would ever know what they said to each other? Humanity has survived how long under this condition?

didntcheck 3y ago
To be fair, it was still hard to hide "metadata". If you met someone in person, or sent a letter, then it would be hard to conceal that from someone surveiling you The difference was they had to be actively targeting you beforehand, and it was an ongoing high expense per target. Now we bulk collect data on the basis that someone might be guilty in the future
gcanyon 3y ago
Wire-tapping is a thing. Sensitive microphones are a thing. "The Thing" is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Again, you act like not being able to wire-tap is a new thing. How long did humanity survive without wires? The ability to have a private conversation that remains a secret forever is a fundamental human right that goes back a hundred thousand years.
  - gcanyon 3y ago
    I'm not sure we agree on the definition of "fundamental human right" -- are you using it to mean "an aspect of fundamental reality"?

XorNot 3y ago

I'm real uncomfortable with comparing kinetic weaponry to communications encryption. These aren't even remotely similar things in damage scope. The argument in favor of private communications is in fact predicated on this: no one can actually cause damage just by communicating. Damage might happen as a result of it, but there is no information so dangerous that the transmission of it must be known up front, and should be pre-emptively scanned for and alerted on. There is always a chain of additional activities and actions which is required for harm to eventuate.

jvanderbot 3y ago
Not only only that, there is something so intrinsically human about communication, and something so vulnerable about having every word archived. How does it go? "Give me a sentence from and honest man and I'll find a way to hang him?" or something. To be clear, I 100% believe that self defense is also intrinsic to being a mobile animal, and everyone has the right to be their own first line of self defense. But most people go their entire lives without needing to defend their self, but nobody goes more than a few days without needing to communicate with someone, often somewhat intimately. The amount of words someone generates is staggering, and if archived arbitrarily, can almost certainly be used against them.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Eh, I've never much cared for that quote or the common interpretation of it. People take it as though the problem is the surveillance. But it's the last part which tells you what's up: "I'll find a way to hang him". The speaker is telling you what they're going to do - everything else is a formality. Your problem began well before they had a sentence, and wouldn't end if they didn't have one.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    A malicious, unlawful actor should be denied all methods of acting out their purpose, as long as it doesn't hurt lawful actors more than they are willing to accept.
- 3y ago

ctoth 3y ago

Actually, I believe you have this backwards. In the time when the Constitution was written, conversations were private (concealed) by default. In order to listen to a conversation, you had to physically listen to the conversation. It is only in the last couple decades that mass access to this sort of conversation is even possible, so encryption seems to be restoring the same implicit right which always existed. Said another way, if you want to analogize e2e encryption to a bazooka, then the government being able to read all of your private communications seems to be the equivalent of having someone constantly violating the fourth (remember that one?) amendment in your house, 24/7.

gcanyon 3y ago
Sure, technology has benefitted the government as well. But if you're going to cite the fact that 250 years ago surveillance required live eavesdropping, then the weapon analogy needs to go back to the time before guns and other range weapons, when you had to physically shove in the pointy bit. In any case, my point was about the ability of civilians to conceal, surveillance is only relevant in its inability to keep up. To your main point, it's important to understand that most people don't feel the need to conceal their conversations from the government. Note: this is not an "if you're not doing crime, what do you need to hide?" argument. I'm just stating the fact that the reason the government can surveil so much information is because people don't choose to encrypt their communications. If they did, the government would have access to very little. Until/unless they set up cameras and microphones everywhere.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

Your argument is complete nonsense. It has never been easier for the government to access your speech because never before has such a large portion of speech been recorded. Police 30 years ago would kill for the data they have access to now. Encryption slightly slows down how quickly the amount of information they have access to is growing, but it can't remotely complete with how quickly the amount of available information is growing.

gcanyon 3y ago
As I replied to someone else, it's important to understand that the only reason the government can surveil so much information is because people don't bother to encrypt their communications. If they did, the government would have access to very little, because government-resistant is readily available.

brnt 3y ago

> personal weaponry It's really only just the US being an outlier here. There's no other western country where people think it's normal or a fundamental right to carry automatic weaponry. I therefore cannot see the comparison to encrypted communication. Everyone communicates, increasingly through software. To keep things that once were private private, encryption is a key ingredient.

catiopatio 3y ago
There’s also no other western country with anything nearly as strong as the first amendment. Not sure what your point is. (Also, the production of new automatic weapons for the civilian market has been illegal since 1986, and civilian ownership of automatic weapons is heavily regulated).
- brnt 3y ago
  The point is that it's a comparison that holds only in a tiny part of the world, which means to comparison is meaningless.

cmiles74 3y ago

In my opinion, the comparison to weaponry is pretty loaded and unreasonable. It evokes scenes of mass shootings, secure communication has no similar destructive power. Warrants are still a thing! The government in the US can still get a warrant and they can compel you to show them the contents of your Signal messages. No fancy E2E backdoors are required. ;-)

catiopatio 3y ago
Unfortunately, it’s not a fringe opinion that speech is similarly dangerous and should be similarly regulated. It’s also not clear that the US government can compel you to reveal a password, much less compel you to incriminate yourself.
- cmiles74 3y ago
  I'm having trouble finding coverage in this, but I believe the current state is that the warrant can require you to unlock the phone but you don't have to tell them how or provide your password. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/11/29/fbi-no-consent-required-for-forced-phone-unlocks-via-finger-or-face https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/11/29/fbi-n... https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-should-not-be-allowed-to-compel-our-cell-phone-passwords https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/police-should-n...

pard68 3y ago

I wouldn't mind a bazooka.

tristor 3y ago

Encryption isn't weaponry, and the fact that the government continues to try to behave like it is (ITAR, et al) is heinous, stupid, and oppressive.