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

151–160 of 215 posts

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

#151

Post by siscia »

jsmcgd wrote: post #149
siscia wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gun and encryption are two completely different beast. With guns you can execute a crime, with encryption you cannot. It is true that you can plan a crime with the use of encryption, but we don't punish on intentions but only on facts. It is not illegal to plan how to kill someone, while it is illegal to actually kill somebody or to try to do it.

If you use encryption to tell someone to kill, you have executed a crime using encryption.

Even if you send a letter, and then the letter is burned.

Anyway we are not going to ban paper, matches, lighters, and the mail services.

You are thinking more like a technician than like a lawyer...

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

#152

Post by WalterBright »

gpvos wrote: post #141
WalterBright wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all the Republicans. Cruz has actively opposed the surveillance state: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/10/ted-cruz-nsa-...

He's an outlier, if not an extremist (seen from the standpoint of the average Republican politician).

Cruz is 2nd in the polls behind Trump. Obviously quite a few Republicans support him.

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

#153

Post by rmc »

statictype wrote: post #97
beedogs wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The original intent of the right to bear arms was to enable protection against an intrusive government. It's very similar to crypto in that sense.

If having guns worked like that, then the USA, with all it's guns, has nothing to fear from the government banning crypto, since you can all just overthrow the government with all your guns, right?

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

#154

Post by rmc »

siscia wrote: post #145
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?

Gun and encryption are two completely different beast. With guns you can execute a crime, with encryption you cannot. It is true that you can plan a crime with the use of encryption, but we don't punish on intentions but only on facts. It is not illegal to plan how to kill someone, while it is illegal to actually kill somebody or to try to do it.

> we don't punish on intentions but only on facts.

Yes we do. Murder vs Manslaughter, "Intent to commit murder", "killing in self defense", theft and fraud are all crimes where someone's intentions are very important.

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

#155

Post by rmc »

rsync wrote: post #110

All computer code can be rephrased in common written (english, perhaps) language. I'm not talking about pseudocode, I mean an actual translation layer from, say, C to english phrasing that specifically describes the computer code to be written. And at that point it's just speech. I don't mean "like speech", or "something sophisticated people should recognize as speech", or "code is speech" ... I mean, it's just plain…

Not every country has the USA's "Free speech über alles" interpretation of "right to free speech"

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

#156

Post by tremon »

WalterBright wrote: post #152
gpvos wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's an outlier, if not an extremist (seen from the standpoint of the average Republican politician).

Cruz is 2nd in the polls behind Trump. Obviously quite a few Republicans support him.

Aren't you confusing republican politicians with republican voters here?

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

#157

Post by ibejoeb »

Oletros wrote: post #142
ibejoeb wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that and it's almost irrelevant since it's only Android-to-Android.

Why is almost irrelevant?

WhatsApp does not give an indication of what software the remote party runs, as far as I know. You'd have to trust the third party in order to rely on the encryption.

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

#158

Post by icelancer »

DanBC wrote: post #135
icelancer wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government The fact that the government outscaled civilians RE: military power doesn't make it a useless law. Think abusive law enforcement at the local/state level.

I'm not sure how armed citizenry helps with law enforcement. People are shot and killed by law enforcement. Sometimes they're shot and killed very quickly, within 30 seconds of an officer arriving on scene. People who are thought to be armed are often shot and killed by US police. Notice the "thought" there, many people are shot even though they don't have a weapon because law enforcement thinks the person has a gun.…

>Do you have any examples where an interaction between a citizen and a cop is made better by the presence of a gun on the citizen?

Better thought: Do you think a completely unarmed populace is a better idea given how bad police abuse their power?

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

#159

Post by siscia »

rmc wrote: post #154
siscia wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gun and encryption are two completely different beast. With guns you can execute a crime, with encryption you cannot. It is true that you can plan a crime with the use of encryption, but we don't punish on intentions but only on facts. It is not illegal to plan how to kill someone, while it is illegal to actually kill somebody or to try to do it.

> we don't punish on intentions but only on facts. Yes we do. Murder vs Manslaughter, "Intent to commit murder", "killing in self defense", theft and fraud are all crimes where someone's intentions are very important.

Quite there, however "Intent to commit murder" is when you actually try to kill somehow, you did make some actions to actually try to kill.

Didn't get the connection with "killing in self defense".

It is true that theft and fraud are all crimes where the intentions are important, however it applies after the crime is already been confirmed.

That we don't punish intentions but only fact is a major cornerstone of the western jurisdictional system; in my opinion is actually weird that we are discussing this.

Please note that the common definition of intents is different from the legal one.

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

#160

Post by statictype »

rmc wrote: post #153
statictype wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original intent of the right to bear arms was to enable protection against an intrusive government. It's very similar to crypto in that sense.

If having guns worked like that, then the USA, with all it's guns, has nothing to fear from the government banning crypto, since you can all just overthrow the government with all your guns, right?

So, today, your guns are basically useless against the government, because the government has ways of overcoming that obstacle.

However, strong crypto and privacy are not useless today. I would bet that strong crypto has done more to protect, for example, Snowden, than guns.

In other words, crypto is the new guns - they are currently a tool that is useful for protection against a rogue government (at least in theory).

Well. Thank you. Your sarcastic reply helped me justify my pro-encryption and anti-gun stance :)

Post reply on HN