The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

Post by ibejoeb » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 2:58 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #39

ibejoeb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the level of simple firearms, arms are arms. You're going to have to argue 2A regardless.

I don't understand this response. Why wouldn't banning the sale of ammunition and ammunition components not work to stop most of the bad problems of guns? A gun is still arms even if it does not have ammunition so this avoids the constitutional problems, but it makes them much safer. I should add that I am not arguing for the banning of ammunition, just why has this not been used as an attack vector on the gun lobby?

Post by beedogs » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 3:13 AM UTC

chongli wrote: post #16

jessegreathouse wrote: post #5

If the government wins any of these court battles, it's only a matter of time until one-way encryption is outlawed. It follows logically that if criminals/terrorists can't use iPhones to securely communicate, then they'll just move on to the next convenient encryption app. The government will continue to order companies to break their one-way encryption until the government realizes they're playing musical chairs and…

FBI Director James Comey already went before Congress and was rejected. I'd say the possibility of him succeeding in the future is even lower, given the way this case has played out. He effectively tried to make an end-run around the legislature by going through the courts with an extremely old law. The powers in Congress did not appreciate this at all and had a lot of very pointed questions for him at his last heari…

Post by sb057 » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 3:21 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #80

krapp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I think a strategy like that only avoids constitutional issues because it's not a general attack on the efficacy of firearms. Anything that has the effect of making guns less effective en masse would probably run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Banning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective - after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law [1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17

Post by statictype » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 3:33 AM UTC

beedogs wrote: post #94

statictype wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very good point. As someone who has been anti-gun and pro-encryption, I'm now wondering how I reconcile these two stances that are at conflict with each other.

Guns are not, fundamentally, a tool for ensuring one's privacy.

Post by danieltillett » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #84

danieltillett wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second. Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.

Admittedly, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the Second Amendment was written at a time when the fledgling country wanted to ensure a distributed defense against potential threats like Spain and England, and Native American tribes. My naive reading of it leads me to believe that the part where the bullets can kill people is kind of non-negotiable.