Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 215 posts

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#121

Post by lsc »

deciplex wrote: post #117
lsc wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin Needs citation. Unless, of course, you mean having access to a gun increases your chances of successfully committing suicide, which is fairly well established... but I think that this is rather different, at least in terms of connotation, than what you said. My impression was that you were implying that having a gun in the h…

> My impression was that you were implying that having a gun in the house makes you significantly more likely to be the victim of an accidental shooting, which while technically true, really isn't worth worrying about compared to, say, car accidents (or even airplane accidents) accidental gun deaths are very rare. Are you sure about the airplane accidents part? Do you have data to back it up? I know that traffic fata…

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

"Firearm— In 2013, 33,636 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States ( Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.4% of all injury deaths in that year. The age-adjusted death rate from firearm injuries (all intents) did not change significantly in 2013 from 2012. The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2013 were suicide (63.0%) and homicide (33.3%). The age-adjusted death rate for firearm homicide decreased 5.3%, from 3.8 in 2012 to 3.6 in 2013. The rate for firearm suicide did not change significantly."

so, that gives us 96.3% of all gun deaths as either suicide or homicide, leaving 3.7% unknown. 3.7% of 33,636 gives us 1,245... okay, uh, so if all of those are accidental deaths, then I'm wrong, as planes aren't nearly that dangerous.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.ht... - claims 600 accidental gun deaths a year even this page (which reads as very anti-gun to me) claims a similar number:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

But, even if the lower ~600 number is right, that puts it in the neighborhood of total airplane deaths globally... so it looks like I was wrong, accidental gun deaths are not rare compared to airplane accidents.

also see

https://wisqars.cdc.gov:8443/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp

which apparently only gives me stats from 2013, NVDRS States: AK, CO, GA, KY, MA, MD, NC, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, UT, VA, WI

but it has a fascinating table of accidental gun deaths.

However, I'd still say that this doesn't detract much from my general argument that the gun control debate becomes more interesting (and, I think, makes more sense) if you understand that Americans use guns more often on themselves than on other people.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#122

Post by msh »

statictype wrote: post #92
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?

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.

encryption don't kill.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#123

Post by reitanqild »

danieltillett wrote: post #23
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?

I have never understood why the USA anti-gun lobby doesn't go after ammunition rather than guns. Just ban ammunition and a gun just becomes a not so dangerous club.

You seem to be really keen about this. If your goal is to make the world a safer place, and not only taking away other people's rights try mandating locking or safes for all but the first one or two guns in a house instead.

Around here you are required to have a weapons safe to store almost any kind of weapon at home. This limits the risk of more guns getting into criminals hands as well as the risk of children toying around with them.

BTW another nice touch around here is you are required to have a reason for having a gun. That either means hunting, target practice or serving in the police or military. Reasons tends to be understood leniently (ie no one cares if you don't go hunting for a few years), except for handguns that requires the local chapter of a target shooting club to vouch for you.

I almost think you could get a good chunk of NRA behind something in these directions if you could somehow make sure it wouldn't be used for racketeering. After all NRA doesn't exactly look like raging bloodthirsty madmen, do they? Just like we aren't very fond of criminals just because we want to keep our encryption?

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#124

Post by danieltillett »

bmelton wrote: post #105
danieltillett wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the words of Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully argued in D.C. v Heller (the pivotal modern firearms case) -- because banning bullets is a backdoor ban on firearms. Firearms without bullets are no longer firearms, they are simply bludgeons.

Sure that is the aim, but is it unconstitutional? How much can you degrade the killing power of a bullet before it becomes unconstitutional?

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#125

Post by danieltillett »

eropple wrote: post #102
danieltillett wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought a lot of laws were cute intents to work around the constitution. Any such law would work its way up the legal chain until it got to the supreme court (assuming they chose to take it up the case). As the federal law on armor piercing bullets shows [1] there does not seem to be anything stopping congress passing a law regulating or banning ammunition. Instead of just limiting the ban to armour piercing it cou…

> I thought a lot of laws were cute intents to work around the constitution. And this is why judges exist: to go "hey, that law is trying to work around the Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional." And I say this as someone very much in favor of gun control. But it must be approached legally , not with the mindset that the law is some kind of computer program executed by idiot minds.

I understand this, but working around one interpretation of the constitution is the aim of many laws if not most.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#126

Post by danieltillett »

bmelton wrote: post #106
danieltillett wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if I was asked to draw up the law (unlikely since I am not a lawyer) I would just follow the current law on armor-piecing bullets [1], but add a clause that limited the powder load to ensure that the bullet’s muzzle velocity could not exceed 10 feet per second. Probably equally effective would be to limit the weight and/or density of the bullet such that bullets could only be made out of aerogel [2]. Once you at…

Your argument fails intermediate scrutiny, which is the minimal level of scrutiny a constitutionally enumerated right must be held to. In brief, strict scrutiny is the most stringent level of scrutiny, and rational basis the least stringent. Operating a vehicle on public roads is decidedly a right, but not a constitutionally enumerated one, so it is only held to rational basis. Rational basis scrutiny allows a right…

>Banning teflon coated bullets does not fundamentally infringe the right, and is narrowly tailored enough that it survives the least restrictive means test. Banning all ammunition cripples the right, fundamentally, and is nowhere near tailored enough to survive heightened levels of scrutiny.

Just to nit pick it is not teflon coated bullets that are banned (at the federal level), but bullets made of certain hardened materials that are banned. The teflon is there just to stop the gun barrel being damaged.

I am not suggesting banning all ammunition (as a tactic), but degrading the killing power of bullets by legislating what they can be made from and how fast they can leave the muzzle. How much could the killing power of bullets be degraded before the law would be considered an infringement on the second amendment?

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#127

Post by danieltillett »

reitanqild wrote: post #123
danieltillett wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never understood why the USA anti-gun lobby doesn't go after ammunition rather than guns. Just ban ammunition and a gun just becomes a not so dangerous club.

You seem to be really keen about this. If your goal is to make the world a safer place, and not only taking away other people's rights try mandating locking or safes for all but the first one or two guns in a house instead. Around here you are required to have a weapons safe to store almost any kind of weapon at home. This limits the risk of more guns getting into criminals hands as well as the risk of children toyin…

I am actually not really that keen on it other than as how to tackle an issue like gun control. If you are in favor of gun control why not go for the weak point (the ammunition) rather than the strong point (the second amendment). It is like the anti-gun lobby is not trying to win and are just in a culture war with the NRA.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#128

Post by WalterBright »

dragonwriter wrote: post #112
barney54 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republicans aren't necessarily better, but they are anti-Obama which helps on this issue.

Not really. The Republicans were for pervasive surveillance and for the national security state for a long time before Obama, and they remain that way now. They may use details of the present controversy to take partisan political shots at the Obama Administration, but, as a party, there's probably more support for government power in this area in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party.

Not all the Republicans. Cruz has actively opposed the surveillance state:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/10/ted-cruz-nsa-...

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#129

Post by exolymph »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #118
robertfw wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and as the original intent went, it made sense. but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government, but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin

> owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government At an individual level it doesn't. At a population level there is an argument that it makes a guerrilla civil war potentially winnable by the rebels, which has a deterrent effect on extreme totalitarianism.

Theoretically it would if the American populous, heavily armed as we are, had any chance whatsoever against the military. We don't, so the point is moot.

Re: The Next Front in the New Crypto Wars: WhatsApp

#130

Post by anantzoid »

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…

If the government succeeds in this case, it'll be George Orwell's 1984 everywhere. A constant monitoring will be done on everyone irrespective of who they are. The terrorists will move on to another stream of communication (I think ISIS already has their own app), and only the innocent citizens will be left to be monitored by the FBI.
Post reply on HN