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

171–180 of 215 posts

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

#171

Post by humanrebar »

adrianN wrote: post #167
over wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you don't personally need guns, but you do need physical safety at each end of the communication. Physical safety is provided by people with guns.

Those people can be policemen.

Police response times will never be low enough to be physically preventative outside of special areas (airports, stadiums, high traffic areas). It doesn't take that long to mug somebody.

Police violence is more of a way to discourage wrongdoing on the part of rational actors. Irrational actors (terrorists, mentally ill, drug-addled, enraged, desperate) probably won't be affected short of an oppressive police state.

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

#172

Post by crazy1van »

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.

> With guns you can execute a crime, with encryption you cannot.

What about the ransomware that encrypts your data and makes you pay money to have it decrypted?

With both guns and crypto, I think we're all better off to focus on keeping the tool legal and selectively outlawing certain human behaviors that use the tool.

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

#173

Post by crazy1van »

exolymph wrote: post #129
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

By this logic, if there was one section of the gov't that had extremely advanced crypto cracking capabilities, then keeping crypto legal for normal citizens should also be a "moot point".

However, citizens would probably still want to keep their data private from all kinds of other eavesdroppers just like they want guns to protect themselves from threats less capable than the military.

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

#174

Post by rmc »

siscia wrote: post #159
rmc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

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

If a reasonable person, in your situtioan, thought that their life was in danger, they can kill someone in self defence. This is less about "intention", but about "what's inside your head", but hose are very similar.

> 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.

Not always. Some countries say "theft" is only when you intend to permanently deprive someone of something. So if I find your wallet on the street, and pick it up in order to bring it to the police station, then I amn't guilty of stealing your wallet. Because I didn't intend to when I picked it up.

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

#175

Post by AnthonyMouse »

exolymph wrote: post #129
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

You're imagining construction workers and commercial airline pilots and physics professors against professional soldiers. Imagine 500 professional soldiers with the backing of 5000 construction workers and commercial airline pilots and physics professors take over the military base where those 500 soldiers were already a quarter of the garrison, because the 5000 already had their own small arms and knew how to use them.

Then they have tanks and planes and nuclear weapons and popular support and the same dynamic plays out at ten other military bases.

Democracies are stable because if you have enough people behind you then you can vote the bums out before you have to fight them militarily. But authoritarian "democracy" where you have a central government imposing controversial laws with only 51% national support and significantly less than that in specific regions is more than a little unstable.

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

#176

Post by Lawtonfogle »

adrianN wrote: post #163
LastZactionHero wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent issues over encryption has actually changed my thinking on guns. I'm not 'pro gun', don't own guns, and want nothing to do with them personally. But as I think about my stance on the legality of encryption it sounds pretty similar to the argument for guns. Still don't want one, but it's harder for me to be dismissive of a point when I turn around and use the same point for another issue.

Contrary to encryption you don't need guns to safely communicate over the Internet, say with your bank. So I'd argue that strong encryption is a lot more important than guns.

You can communicate with your bank safely, you'll just be limited in ways to do so. Just like without guns, you can still defend yourself from a home intruder, but you are limited. To my knowledge, there is not a right to be able to communicate securely using the internet.

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

#177

Post by Lawtonfogle »

adrianN wrote: post #167
over wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you don't personally need guns, but you do need physical safety at each end of the communication. Physical safety is provided by people with guns.

Those people can be policemen.

Police has no requirement to protect. Also, there are people who live in areas where the police response time is 1+ hours even for the most drastic issues.

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

#178

Post by Lawtonfogle »

robertfw wrote: post #101
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.

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

Has any study shown this as a causation, or only a correlation?

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

#179

Post by niij »

danieltillett wrote: post #96
sb057 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why has this law not fallen afoul of the second amendment? In many people's eyes, it has.

When did the supreme court rule this law was unconstitutional?

He said nothing about it being ruled unconstitutional. I assume what parent is trying to say is that the restriction on their 2nd amendment rights (which is what this law is-- a restriction of a right) is, in many people's opinion, contrary to the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. Now, there is a difference between restricting of a right and a ban of a right, but it becomes a very fine line.

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

#180

Post by niij »

cgriswald wrote: post #116
danieltillett wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is the second amendment has been “interpreted” quite a bit over the years - after all the original intent of the law was that people could own arms (i.e. military grade weapons), not just handguns and the like.

I interpret the first amendment to mean we have a right to make sounds come out of our mouths. The content of those sounds, however, is not protected. Since there are an infinite number of combinations of sounds, banning political statements does not impact that right. You are still free to make infinite sounds. The amendment also does not cover the right to record that sound or to write thoughts down on paper. And w…

Thank you for this. This guy is either a supporter of Nanny States or has a massive lack of understanding of basic U.S. constitutional law.
Post reply on HN