10 ms·

Yes, because giving up privacy and anonymity will only marginally slow down (if at all) the would be evildoers, at least those smart enough to not brag about th

Yes, because giving up privacy and anonymity will only marginally slow down (if at all) the would be evildoers, at least those smart enough to not brag about their evil doings in Facebook. In my home country, we have one of the more strict gun owning laws in the world. That does not prevent the criminals from getting guns at all - pretty much every random fucker can get his hand on a pistol, and organized gangs have gear that is often comparable with that of the army. But, on the other hand, it is pretty difficult for the average law abiding citizen to arm themselves for self protection. The funny thing is, this strict control got really started in the late 60's and 70's, when student riots made for a moment seem like a coupe / civil war against the regime were at least thinkable. So, what are the real winners when the government outlaws technologies than short the gap between state power vs individual powers? It is not the criminal elements in society. They already are breaking the law and profiting from it. They will work around whatever restrictions get imposed and illegally import the gear they need from wherever it is available. It is you and me who get the shaft!

icebraining 11y ago
The point of gun control isn't to keep the guns from the hands of real criminals (much less gangs), it's to keep guns from the average not-really-law-abiding citizen, who gets drunk and shoots his ex-wife, or leaves his gun accessible to his kids (hello school shootings) or just gets mad at his boss (just happened around here, the guy had a hunting rifle). Whether that justifies preventing people from arming themselves for self-defense is arguable, of course.
- AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
  Not sure why you are being down-voted. This is spot on.
- angersock 11y ago
  The point of gun control is to score points with some parts of the population while disarming the rest--anything else is just grandstanding used to justify the act.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Yes, that's the motivation for politicians; I'm talking about the reasons why it scores them some points.
- 15155 11y ago
  > The point of gun control isn't to keep the guns from the hands of real criminals (much less gangs) Ah, so there we have it. > it's to keep guns from the average not-really-law-abiding citizen So guilty until proven innocent. > Whether that justifies preventing people from arming themselves for self-defense is arguable, of course I guess it's a great thing we have the Second Amendment and associated judicial proceedings. Heller v. DC further enshrined the individual right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, semi-automatic handguns. Stare decisis.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    So guilty until proven innocent. Nonsense. A general restriction is not the same as declaring everyone guilty. Am I being declared guilty until proven innocent by not being allowed to own military weaponry? Nuclear weapons? Biological agents? This doesn't mean the restrictions are OK in this case; as I wrote, it's arguable* I guess it's a great thing we have the Second Amendment and associated judicial proceedings. Whatever makes you happy. Not being from the US, my interest is purely academic. Our constitution has no such provision, and the population is under no urge to add it.
- crpatino 11y ago
  At risk of going extremely off-topic, let me ask. Are you saying that because there are idiots who drink and drive, all cars should be banned. But if there end up being criminals with cars that get away from the police on bikes... then it is somehow alright because it was never a goal to stop them in the first place? I guess I feel even more strongly against letting a dumb law enforcement agency dictate what infosec is ok to have on my systems, thank you very much! [Edit] Ok, I can see my argument was kind of dumb, comparing regulation with outright banning.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Frankly, thugs with guns are irrelevant. I'm not advocating to drop all privacy because there are some bad guys with ill intent, who may want to hurt you or me - as a society we've already decided it's not a big deal (otherwise you'd have much more resources poured into crime prevention). The question I'm asking is - in the quickly coming age of easily obtainable weapons of mass destruction, does the privacy arguments change? And how do you want to secure people from random evildoers utilizing such weapons? It's a genuine concern, and in case you think I'm just fearmongering, I suggest checking out the progress happening in biotechnology.
- crpatino 11y ago
  It was not my intention to fear monger. I was speaking by analogy, not sure if it was not clear or if you disagree with my argument. What I am saying is this: in a world where weapons of mass destruction becomes more available, privacy/anonymity is mostly a non issue. I will say it outfront: I am skeptical of the evil genius in a basement, holding a day job while secretly moonlighting on his personal armageddon. Players willing and able to conduct this type of terrorist attacks will probably not rely on the same IT stack regular joes do. Assuming they have the financial resources and personnel to pose a credible threat will know to not use their iphones. They will know to use vintage hardware, to download and compile their own Linux/OpenBSD from scratch, to get their crypto libraries from "rouge" countries outside of the sphere of influence of the US, etc. Those that do not, they will be busted early. Those that pose the real threat then are the ones that you cannot stop by making technology harder to get. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. And they will have gear that is in the same ballpark as the forces that are supposed to stop them. Probably not as good as the best there is, because you can never outspend the guy with the printing press, but good enough to hold their own. And then there is the cost. Not only the conspiracy theory cost that the government is going to turn fascist, but the very real cost of giving real criminals an edge over the public. They already are breaking the law, they wont care about using banned technology. If they can afford it, and if they can either profit from it or avoid being caught using it, they will get it in the black market.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago

The point of gun control isn't to keep the guns from the hands of real criminals (much less gangs), it's to keep guns from the average not-really-law-abiding citizen, who gets drunk and shoots his ex-wife, or leaves his gun accessible to his kids (hello school shootings) or just gets mad at his boss (just happened around here, the guy had a hunting rifle). Whether that justifies preventing people from arming themselves for self-defense is arguable, of course.

AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
Not sure why you are being down-voted. This is spot on.
angersock 11y ago
The point of gun control is to score points with some parts of the population while disarming the rest--anything else is just grandstanding used to justify the act.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Yes, that's the motivation for politicians; I'm talking about the reasons why it scores them some points.
15155 11y ago
> The point of gun control isn't to keep the guns from the hands of real criminals (much less gangs) Ah, so there we have it. > it's to keep guns from the average not-really-law-abiding citizen So guilty until proven innocent. > Whether that justifies preventing people from arming themselves for self-defense is arguable, of course I guess it's a great thing we have the Second Amendment and associated judicial proceedings. Heller v. DC further enshrined the individual right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, semi-automatic handguns. Stare decisis.
- icebraining 11y ago
  So guilty until proven innocent. Nonsense. A general restriction is not the same as declaring everyone guilty. Am I being declared guilty until proven innocent by not being allowed to own military weaponry? Nuclear weapons? Biological agents? This doesn't mean the restrictions are OK in this case; as I wrote, it's arguable* I guess it's a great thing we have the Second Amendment and associated judicial proceedings. Whatever makes you happy. Not being from the US, my interest is purely academic. Our constitution has no such provision, and the population is under no urge to add it.
crpatino 11y ago
At risk of going extremely off-topic, let me ask. Are you saying that because there are idiots who drink and drive, all cars should be banned. But if there end up being criminals with cars that get away from the police on bikes... then it is somehow alright because it was never a goal to stop them in the first place? I guess I feel even more strongly against letting a dumb law enforcement agency dictate what infosec is ok to have on my systems, thank you very much! [Edit] Ok, I can see my argument was kind of dumb, comparing regulation with outright banning.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Frankly, thugs with guns are irrelevant. I'm not advocating to drop all privacy because there are some bad guys with ill intent, who may want to hurt you or me - as a society we've already decided it's not a big deal (otherwise you'd have much more resources poured into crime prevention). The question I'm asking is - in the quickly coming age of easily obtainable weapons of mass destruction, does the privacy arguments change? And how do you want to secure people from random evildoers utilizing such weapons? It's a genuine concern, and in case you think I'm just fearmongering, I suggest checking out the progress happening in biotechnology.

crpatino 11y ago
It was not my intention to fear monger. I was speaking by analogy, not sure if it was not clear or if you disagree with my argument. What I am saying is this: in a world where weapons of mass destruction becomes more available, privacy/anonymity is mostly a non issue. I will say it outfront: I am skeptical of the evil genius in a basement, holding a day job while secretly moonlighting on his personal armageddon. Players willing and able to conduct this type of terrorist attacks will probably not rely on the same IT stack regular joes do. Assuming they have the financial resources and personnel to pose a credible threat will know to not use their iphones. They will know to use vintage hardware, to download and compile their own Linux/OpenBSD from scratch, to get their crypto libraries from "rouge" countries outside of the sphere of influence of the US, etc. Those that do not, they will be busted early. Those that pose the real threat then are the ones that you cannot stop by making technology harder to get. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. And they will have gear that is in the same ballpark as the forces that are supposed to stop them. Probably not as good as the best there is, because you can never outspend the guy with the printing press, but good enough to hold their own. And then there is the cost. Not only the conspiracy theory cost that the government is going to turn fascist, but the very real cost of giving real criminals an edge over the public. They already are breaking the law, they wont care about using banned technology. If they can afford it, and if they can either profit from it or avoid being caught using it, they will get it in the black market.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago