5 ms·

I do not like these framings of "not a" because it always sounds so suspicious like "we are not a cult". It puts the idea into the world that it could be a cri

by i5heu 1y ago

I do not like these framings of "not a" because it always sounds so suspicious like "we are not a cult". It puts the idea into the world that it could be a crime and maybe that it is the status quo. Much better IMHO is something like "Encryption is a fundamental right.", "Encryption protects everyone.", "Without encryption there is no democracy." and so on. Maybe "Don’t let them take your right to privacy."

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms Encryption is free association and free speech. Talking to someone about what I like without eavesdroppers Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Presenting how I like and not how some wannabe king wants me to
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms" Yeah, as someone who's viewed America from the outside for decades tragically it's no longer the country I once knew.
  - clarionbell 1y ago
    The big issue right now is that they can't seem to agree on what those freedoms even mean.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    I think this is a perception formed by media biases. Pretty much any right or freedom evaluated on an individual basis will show that rights and freedoms have expanded (at least up to a few months ago). Many of the negative things being done today have been done in one form or another for a generation or two. I'm not saying that they're right or shouldn't change, just that the perspective of eroding freedoms or right is generally not true outside of business regulations.
    - hilbert42 1y ago
      No doubt 'perception formed by media biases' has played a significant part and it's been exacerbated by modern communications and social media etc. but I'd contend there's more to it than just that. What I didn't mention was that I've been to the US many times and I've relatives there, and I've even worked there and these factors have also influenced my perception. Let me put it this way, if the Greatest Generation, aka the G.I. Generation were to come back today and saw what has happened they'd not only be dismayed but horrified. Right, much of that reaction is to be expected with intergenerational change, etc. but again I'd suggest it's more than that. It's not possible for me to even begin to justify what I've said as even a précis would take me many pages. Instead, I'd refer you to journalist Tom Brokaw's 1998 book The Greatest Generation wherein he describes the values and beliefs of the people of this generation as well as the ethos of the era in which they lived. Far be it for me to tell American society what it ought to be doing but I'm of the opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea if all Americans read this book—after all, it's actually Brokaw who's making the suggestion that his countrymen read the book or he wouldn't have written it. In short, Brokaw wrote this book because he sensed the same change in US society as I had done and no doubt much more acutely so. I'll now extrapolate: it's now over quarter century since he wrote it and I'd contend the contrast to which he referred is now even more extreme. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation_(boo... BTW, just don't take my word, I'd suggest you search out some of the book's reviews. Incidentally, when I was working in NY some decades ago I shared my office with a GI of that generation and he became a great friend. I had many discussions with him about his past experiences. I consider it great privilege to have known him (his name would be familiar to some of you).
      - giantg2 1y ago
        You're referencing a book that is specifically written to convince people of the good parts of that generation. I highly doubt it's giving a balanced view or objectively looking at rights/freedoms expanding or contracting. Let's just take some examples. What about interment camps during WW2, deporting communist supporters shortly after, racial segregation, performing human subject experiments on black people and biological weapons research on the public without consent, and much higher abuse of power or corruption in politics and in policing. Which freedoms existed then that don't exist today?
  - OhMeadhbh 1y ago
    It probably was never the country you once knew. The view of "american freedoms" is radically different depending on the viewer's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy.
    - hilbert42 1y ago
      Prehaps not. See my reply to giantg2.
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  I'm not sure the US population ever really believed in fundamental freedoms. They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago. There are living people from that time, and you can't believe in any human right and have an apartheid at the same time.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    People believe in logical inconsistencies all of the time, it’s practically the default. Also there is no such thing as perfect freedom, it’s best thought of as an optimization problem with many dimensions. As an example, the civil rights act necessarily curtails the freedom of association.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    "They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago." For many of us outside the US there's a dichotomy here. The North won the bitterly contested Civil War and freed the slaves but never really afforded them true freedoms. Why? The perception from the outside is that conscience over slavery per se drove the North to war and not concern for the fact that slaves were actually people who were suffering enslavement and or unfairly treated. Edit: Given the Civil War why was the Civil Rights Movement 100 years later necessary?
- 15155 1y ago
  > Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Is a legal requirement for others to affirm this expression also "free speech?"
  - kortex 1y ago
    Has there been a single instance where someone faced legal repercussions for not affirming someone's gender?
    - 15155 1y ago
      Legislation is currently in the works (and likely to pass): https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312 "Lose custody of your child" is very much a "legal repercussion."
      - OhMeadhbh 1y ago
        You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming?
        15155 1y ago
        > You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming? Classic strawman argument. Where was anything like this suggested? Are they barred today under existing legislation? The eventuality of this line of reasoning is that: "special interests who control the DSM (or whatever standards body governs these soft sciences) can influence and determine the outcome of custody battles." DSM-4 defined "gender-identity disorder" as a thing, that's now been de-pathologized to "gender dysphoria." Under your framework, a body of unelected, politically and financially-motivated "experts" can now determine the imposition of legal consequences on a whim.
        OhMeadhbh 1y ago
- jack_h 1y ago
  > I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms I wish people understood the American system at a philosophical level. What you call "American freedoms" are largely based off of negative rights, i.e. John Locke. Our bill of rights use specific language like "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "shall not be violated". It's inherently freedom from state action. Over the past 100 years a different interpretation of rights has emerged, so called positive rights as exemplified in FDRs second bill of rights; e.g. "the right to a good education" or "the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation". This requires state action to facilitate freedoms for its citizens. Unfortunately these systems are incompatible. I think a lot of the friction we are seeing in modern times can partially be traced to this contradiction.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    "Unfortunately these systems are incompatible. I think a lot of the friction we are seeing in modern times can partially be traced to this contradiction." I'm pretty certain you're correct but I won't attempt to justify it detail here as we have to bring out the political philosophy texts on mass. In the light of the English Civil War many thought about politics and freedoms Locke being one, his contemporary [almost] Thomas Hobbes with a different position—the Leviathan. Rights, freedoms and social contract theory was still raging nearly a century later with Rousseau whingeing about man being born free but everywhere he's in chains—opening line of the Social Contract. And there's still no universally agreed consensus. Over the centuries political philosophy has covered almost every conceivable interpretation/position about the rights and powers of the State versus individual freedoms, so it's not for the want of options/choices. Dichotomies still remain because the citizenry is composed of people with wide range of political beliefs many of which are incompatible (this has always been the situation). We shouldn't expect a consensus.
Retr0id 1y ago
It's also, unfortunately, not literally/universally true. There are plenty of jurisdictions and contexts in which it is a crime.
- xnickb 1y ago
  A friend of mine had to swear on a holy book to not use VPN upon returning to their country of origin.
  - jvanderbot 1y ago
    This would make me nervous, but also optimistic that it's difficult to detect? Otherwise why use hell as a deterrent?
    - Vilian 1y ago
      Or just bigger leverage, the crime isn't using the VPN, but lying or dishonoring the holy book
- arnonejoe 1y ago
  I don’t understand this. If you live in the US and use a service like ProtonMail, has a crime been committed? Are there any examples here in the US or anywhere else of arrests/prosecutions being made over encryption? I’ve never heard of any??
  - gruez 1y ago
    He's probably talking about authoritarian regimes like China or whatever.
    - throawayonthe 1y ago
      [dead]
  - RIMR 1y ago
    There are places that are not the United States.
stronglikedan 1y ago
It makes sense in this context, as it operates on the idea that it could be a crime: "Contrary to what some policymakers seem to believe, whether naively or maliciously, encryption is not a crime."
roenxi 1y ago
Also, I've heard it said that people have a tendency to subconsciously flush "not" and remember that sort of statement as "encryption is a crime". It is slightly better to put things positively (eg, "Encryption is the reasonable default").
kgwxd 1y ago
"Speech is not a crime"
- OhMeadhbh 1y ago
  Not all speech is non-criminal, at least in the US. Inciting speech has always been subject to prior-restraint and fraudulent commercial speech has always subjected the speaker to legal peril.
giantg2 1y ago
I generally agree. My first thought was that if I encrypt your data without your permission, that would be a crime (eg ransomware).
- OhMeadhbh 1y ago
  I think you also have to delete the original information before it becomes a crime. Though monkeying around on someone elses' machine(s) without permission is criminal behaviour in most jurisdictions I've looked at.
netfortius 1y ago
The "is a right" hasn't worked in years. I'm a lot of areas. . I rather agree with the more specific and up to date "is not a crime".
- OhMeadhbh 1y ago
  Claiming a right is not the same as exercising the right, though typically the claim precedes the exercise. Also, are you suggesting you don't have the right to use encrypted communications? (assuming you're not in France, where the "right" to encrypted communications has never been explicitly recognized.)

by i5heu 1y ago

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms Encryption is free association and free speech. Talking to someone about what I like without eavesdroppers Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Presenting how I like and not how some wannabe king wants me to

hilbert42 1y ago
"I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms" Yeah, as someone who's viewed America from the outside for decades tragically it's no longer the country I once knew.
- clarionbell 1y ago
  The big issue right now is that they can't seem to agree on what those freedoms even mean.
- giantg2 1y ago
  I think this is a perception formed by media biases. Pretty much any right or freedom evaluated on an individual basis will show that rights and freedoms have expanded (at least up to a few months ago). Many of the negative things being done today have been done in one form or another for a generation or two. I'm not saying that they're right or shouldn't change, just that the perspective of eroding freedoms or right is generally not true outside of business regulations.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    No doubt 'perception formed by media biases' has played a significant part and it's been exacerbated by modern communications and social media etc. but I'd contend there's more to it than just that. What I didn't mention was that I've been to the US many times and I've relatives there, and I've even worked there and these factors have also influenced my perception. Let me put it this way, if the Greatest Generation, aka the G.I. Generation were to come back today and saw what has happened they'd not only be dismayed but horrified. Right, much of that reaction is to be expected with intergenerational change, etc. but again I'd suggest it's more than that. It's not possible for me to even begin to justify what I've said as even a précis would take me many pages. Instead, I'd refer you to journalist Tom Brokaw's 1998 book The Greatest Generation wherein he describes the values and beliefs of the people of this generation as well as the ethos of the era in which they lived. Far be it for me to tell American society what it ought to be doing but I'm of the opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea if all Americans read this book—after all, it's actually Brokaw who's making the suggestion that his countrymen read the book or he wouldn't have written it. In short, Brokaw wrote this book because he sensed the same change in US society as I had done and no doubt much more acutely so. I'll now extrapolate: it's now over quarter century since he wrote it and I'd contend the contrast to which he referred is now even more extreme. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation_(boo... BTW, just don't take my word, I'd suggest you search out some of the book's reviews. Incidentally, when I was working in NY some decades ago I shared my office with a GI of that generation and he became a great friend. I had many discussions with him about his past experiences. I consider it great privilege to have known him (his name would be familiar to some of you).
    - giantg2 1y ago
      You're referencing a book that is specifically written to convince people of the good parts of that generation. I highly doubt it's giving a balanced view or objectively looking at rights/freedoms expanding or contracting. Let's just take some examples. What about interment camps during WW2, deporting communist supporters shortly after, racial segregation, performing human subject experiments on black people and biological weapons research on the public without consent, and much higher abuse of power or corruption in politics and in policing. Which freedoms existed then that don't exist today?
- OhMeadhbh 1y ago
  It probably was never the country you once knew. The view of "american freedoms" is radically different depending on the viewer's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    Prehaps not. See my reply to giantg2.
marcosdumay 1y ago
I'm not sure the US population ever really believed in fundamental freedoms. They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago. There are living people from that time, and you can't believe in any human right and have an apartheid at the same time.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  People believe in logical inconsistencies all of the time, it’s practically the default. Also there is no such thing as perfect freedom, it’s best thought of as an optimization problem with many dimensions. As an example, the civil rights act necessarily curtails the freedom of association.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago." For many of us outside the US there's a dichotomy here. The North won the bitterly contested Civil War and freed the slaves but never really afforded them true freedoms. Why? The perception from the outside is that conscience over slavery per se drove the North to war and not concern for the fact that slaves were actually people who were suffering enslavement and or unfairly treated. Edit: Given the Civil War why was the Civil Rights Movement 100 years later necessary?
15155 1y ago
> Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Is a legal requirement for others to affirm this expression also "free speech?"
- kortex 1y ago
  Has there been a single instance where someone faced legal repercussions for not affirming someone's gender?
  - 15155 1y ago
    Legislation is currently in the works (and likely to pass): https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312 "Lose custody of your child" is very much a "legal repercussion."
    - OhMeadhbh 1y ago
      You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming?
      - 15155 1y ago
        > You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming? Classic strawman argument. Where was anything like this suggested? Are they barred today under existing legislation? The eventuality of this line of reasoning is that: "special interests who control the DSM (or whatever standards body governs these soft sciences) can influence and determine the outcome of custody battles." DSM-4 defined "gender-identity disorder" as a thing, that's now been de-pathologized to "gender dysphoria." Under your framework, a body of unelected, politically and financially-motivated "experts" can now determine the imposition of legal consequences on a whim.
        OhMeadhbh 1y ago
jack_h 1y ago
> I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms I wish people understood the American system at a philosophical level. What you call "American freedoms" are largely based off of negative rights, i.e. John Locke. Our bill of rights use specific language like "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "shall not be violated". It's inherently freedom from state action. Over the past 100 years a different interpretation of rights has emerged, so called positive rights as exemplified in FDRs second bill of rights; e.g. "the right to a good education" or "the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation". This requires state action to facilitate freedoms for its citizens. Unfortunately these systems are incompatible. I think a lot of the friction we are seeing in modern times can partially be traced to this contradiction.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "Unfortunately these systems are incompatible. I think a lot of the friction we are seeing in modern times can partially be traced to this contradiction." I'm pretty certain you're correct but I won't attempt to justify it detail here as we have to bring out the political philosophy texts on mass. In the light of the English Civil War many thought about politics and freedoms Locke being one, his contemporary [almost] Thomas Hobbes with a different position—the Leviathan. Rights, freedoms and social contract theory was still raging nearly a century later with Rousseau whingeing about man being born free but everywhere he's in chains—opening line of the Social Contract. And there's still no universally agreed consensus. Over the centuries political philosophy has covered almost every conceivable interpretation/position about the rights and powers of the State versus individual freedoms, so it's not for the want of options/choices. Dichotomies still remain because the citizenry is composed of people with wide range of political beliefs many of which are incompatible (this has always been the situation). We shouldn't expect a consensus.

Retr0id 1y ago

It's also, unfortunately, not literally/universally true. There are plenty of jurisdictions and contexts in which it is a crime.

xnickb 1y ago
A friend of mine had to swear on a holy book to not use VPN upon returning to their country of origin.
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  This would make me nervous, but also optimistic that it's difficult to detect? Otherwise why use hell as a deterrent?
  - Vilian 1y ago
    Or just bigger leverage, the crime isn't using the VPN, but lying or dishonoring the holy book
arnonejoe 1y ago
I don’t understand this. If you live in the US and use a service like ProtonMail, has a crime been committed? Are there any examples here in the US or anywhere else of arrests/prosecutions being made over encryption? I’ve never heard of any??
- gruez 1y ago
  He's probably talking about authoritarian regimes like China or whatever.
  - throawayonthe 1y ago
    [dead]
- RIMR 1y ago
  There are places that are not the United States.

stronglikedan 1y ago

It makes sense in this context, as it operates on the idea that it could be a crime: "Contrary to what some policymakers seem to believe, whether naively or maliciously, encryption is not a crime."

roenxi 1y ago

Also, I've heard it said that people have a tendency to subconsciously flush "not" and remember that sort of statement as "encryption is a crime". It is slightly better to put things positively (eg, "Encryption is the reasonable default").

kgwxd 1y ago

"Speech is not a crime"

OhMeadhbh 1y ago
Not all speech is non-criminal, at least in the US. Inciting speech has always been subject to prior-restraint and fraudulent commercial speech has always subjected the speaker to legal peril.

giantg2 1y ago

I generally agree. My first thought was that if I encrypt your data without your permission, that would be a crime (eg ransomware).

OhMeadhbh 1y ago
I think you also have to delete the original information before it becomes a crime. Though monkeying around on someone elses' machine(s) without permission is criminal behaviour in most jurisdictions I've looked at.

netfortius 1y ago

The "is a right" hasn't worked in years. I'm a lot of areas. . I rather agree with the more specific and up to date "is not a crime".

OhMeadhbh 1y ago
Claiming a right is not the same as exercising the right, though typically the claim precedes the exercise. Also, are you suggesting you don't have the right to use encrypted communications? (assuming you're not in France, where the "right" to encrypted communications has never been explicitly recognized.)