3 ms·

At this point, banning security tools a violation of the second amendment. Microsoft suffers breach after breach after acquisition after acquisition. I verball

At this point, banning security tools a violation of the second amendment. Microsoft suffers breach after breach after acquisition after acquisition. I verbally note them to my wife to remember, "This is not normal." and even she said, "Why do the numbers keep getting worse and worse." and I told her, "The database keeps getting larger and larger ever since they were only slapped on the wrist for not letting me boot straight to firefox since childhood." If you took away my ability to understand why the world around me is failing, we'd fall into further disrepair than we already are and we're not really allowed to repair anything, now are we?

RegnisGnaw 3y ago
Again this is not the US. This involves Canada, there is no second amendment.
sokoloff 3y ago
I'm struggling to connect how the banning of security tools would be a violation of the (US) second amendment. A violation of the first, fourth, and ninth? I can see that. A propensity to violate the fifth? I can see that. But I can't see a strong connection to the second.
- lithos 3y ago
  There was a point in the US where encryption was barred from export based on arms export laws. Lots a pretty famous open source stories from such. So it's not far fetched at all for the most part. Though this is in US law, not Canada as related to the news story.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    > There was a point in the US where encryption was barred from export based on arms export laws. Are there any US court cases that suggested treating encryption as something covered by the Second Amendment? It would be more strange than putting malware under the Second Amendment. I can appreciate the gotcha of "if the US government defines encryption as arms then the second amendment applies" to disincentivize such a definition, but the government could simply call encryption something other than "arms" and thus avoid the Second Amendment. I think the general consensus in the US is that encryption falls firmly under the First Amendment. It's not as if the First and Second Amendments are necessarily mutually exclusive with respect to any given tool, but I think case law is such that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to encryption.
- AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
  A way of looking at the second amendment is as a reduction in imbalanced power structures. Its purpose, depending on how you read it, but as practiced in the US, is to put the citizenry on more level footing with the government so the government doesn't get too excited with their power. Security bypasses/tools/exploits in that context are useful for leveling the playing field in a conflict, for instance we know the NSA is hoarding them for militaristic purposes. So if we call them cyber weapons rather than security tools it starts to make sense that, per that reasoning, citizens should have access to them too.

RegnisGnaw 3y ago

Again this is not the US. This involves Canada, there is no second amendment.

sokoloff 3y ago

I'm struggling to connect how the banning of security tools would be a violation of the (US) second amendment. A violation of the first, fourth, and ninth? I can see that. A propensity to violate the fifth? I can see that. But I can't see a strong connection to the second.

lithos 3y ago
There was a point in the US where encryption was barred from export based on arms export laws. Lots a pretty famous open source stories from such. So it's not far fetched at all for the most part. Though this is in US law, not Canada as related to the news story.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > There was a point in the US where encryption was barred from export based on arms export laws. Are there any US court cases that suggested treating encryption as something covered by the Second Amendment? It would be more strange than putting malware under the Second Amendment. I can appreciate the gotcha of "if the US government defines encryption as arms then the second amendment applies" to disincentivize such a definition, but the government could simply call encryption something other than "arms" and thus avoid the Second Amendment. I think the general consensus in the US is that encryption falls firmly under the First Amendment. It's not as if the First and Second Amendments are necessarily mutually exclusive with respect to any given tool, but I think case law is such that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to encryption.
AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
A way of looking at the second amendment is as a reduction in imbalanced power structures. Its purpose, depending on how you read it, but as practiced in the US, is to put the citizenry on more level footing with the government so the government doesn't get too excited with their power. Security bypasses/tools/exploits in that context are useful for leveling the playing field in a conflict, for instance we know the NSA is hoarding them for militaristic purposes. So if we call them cyber weapons rather than security tools it starts to make sense that, per that reasoning, citizens should have access to them too.