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

181–190 of 215 posts

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

#181

Post by mitchty »

danieltillett wrote: post #78
mitchty wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it wouldn't work. You're purposefully trying to work around the intent of things. Judges tend to take ill view of cute things like that. Besides, ok you ban the sale of ammunition. Now are you going to ban reloaders and selling of ammunition components too? How far are you willing to go down that rabbit hole? Noting that it isn't that hard to make ammunition are you going to ban the knowledge of that as well?…

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…

The bans of armor piercing bullets have their own reasoning behind them. Banning all bullets would ensure any arguments presented would amount to banning of armaments.

It would be akin to banning cars by banning the sale of wheels. You will be hard pressed to say your intent is to stop people getting run over by stopping wheels from running people over. It is patently obvious your goal is to stop cars from being used. Even if you ban wheels with spikes on them that obviously only ever get used to destroy other cars, that doesn't mean that it is ok to ban all wheels using the same logic.

You'll probably want to ask a lawyer the legal situations behind your proposal. They'll be better able to elaborate. But in talking to some lawyer friends in the past, they note judges are really good at sniffing out attempts to work around the spirit or intent of a law.

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

#182

Post by 15155 »

danieltillett wrote: post #49
fiatmoney wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing so would be a good way to start a civil war.

Yes, but one fought with clubs not bullets :)

I know people with hundreds of thousands of rounds of reloading supplies, some with as much ammo.. They're not unique.

We've been making "modern" repeating firearms and ammunition for over 100 years - it's foolish to think that with modern precision technology being so cheaply available that the people would be unable to craft ammunition at home.

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

#183

Post by dragonwriter »

WalterBright wrote: post #128
dragonwriter wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I was talking the parties as parties (and, particular, as parties-in-government rather than parties-in-the-electorate). But id be cautious about drawing conclusions about Cruz: he is a first term Senator who has spent his whole time in office in the Congressional majority with the opposing party in the White House -- members of either party seem more opposed to the surveillance state (and expansive executive powers generally) when they are in the legislative majority and the other party controls the executive.

That's even true, though perhaps less so, without the legislative majority. A lot of Democrats who don't look like solid opponents of surveillance now would if you considered only their relationship cord during the George W. Bush administration.

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

#184

Post by reitanqild »

danieltillett wrote: post #127
reitanqild wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Other people, way more skilled in law than me has already answered you multiple times on this.

When you go on and on about this it is borderline trolling IMO.

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

#185

Post by dragonwriter »

ethbro wrote: post #140
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.

Ironically, I had this same thought today while listening to a This American Life on Shay's Rebellion [1]. The right to keep and bear arms has more bearing on access to encryption than any other recognized right. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

Er, no, the right to choose how and with whom you communicate -- which is what encryption is about -- is not closely related to the RKBA, but it is related to (and, in fact, the whole point of) the rights to speech, press, and assembly in the First Amendment. Even insofar as encryption is a metaphorical defensive weapon that safeguard against government tyranny, which makes it loosely analogous to the RKBA, it's still more connected to the first Amendment expression rights, which were considered important for exactly that purpose.

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

#186

Post by nickik »

barney54 wrote: post #70
chongli wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Obama Administration simply will not throw their own (the FBI) under the bus. Fortunately for us the Democrats do not control congress so Obama is unlikely to get his wish here.

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

Might not be a popular opinion but i think the US is always at its best when its divided. Given current political situation, nothing getting passed is preferable to all alternatives.

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

#187

Post by exolymph »

crazy1van wrote: post #173
exolymph wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would agree with this if guns were mostly used to protect people from threats less capable than the military. In practice, they're not: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thre...

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

#188

Post by exolymph »

icelancer wrote: post #133
exolymph wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is unknown. The entirety of the military would probably not be unified in an all-out Civil War II. Furthermore it is not relevant considering police state abuse is more rampant than ever, which is a good enough "logical" reason, which again is also not important considering it's a fundamental right at its base level.

The point about the military split being unknown is fair. However, I think police state abuse is a red herring, since people don't actually use guns to combat that: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thre...

I also disagree, conceptually, with the idea of fundamental rights: http://sonyaellenmann.com/2015/11/human-rights-are-not-innat...

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

#189

Post by bmelton »

siscia wrote: post #151
jsmcgd wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Are we going to ban metal, drill presses, 3D printers and sulfur?

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

#190

Post by nickik »

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

I think it dies give some protection. Sure when swat comes to your house, guns will not save you. However in a extrem case were masses of people feel threatened by government and their is real civil unrest, the cost for the govemnet to put this down by force will be massivly higher.

In that sense its the same as encryption, it all boils down to an argument of economics.

When the NSA wants to hack you, you are fucked. When the FBI wants to arrest you, you are fucked. Only in mass can either of these measures have a large impact on government policy. Both things stop the goverment from some actions that they might take.

I agree that guns have larger everyday danger effect then encryption. However Im not convinced that, its sufficantly good argument outlaw guns.

Post reply on HN