111–120 of 417 posts
If there was such a thing like gun control they wouldn't need to access his phone. Just restrict access to guns.
It is politically more feasible to ban encryption in the US than it is to ban guns (or even significantly restrict them). Wait, I'm wrong. Even essentially insignificant changes to gun laws at the federal level are harder than banning crypto.
We (HN commenters) all know that the demonization of encryption is bullshit. What we need to do is to figure out how to communicate that effectively to the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me. I draw the line on the side of privacy. I'm absolutely fine with potential unresolved loose ends in a criminal investigation if it means we actually get to practice real security and gain all the privacy that en…
> I draw the line on the side of privacy. It's easy to be abstract - what if it had been your family & family? Or do strangers not count? > there are always several avenues of inquiry for evidence-gathering which you've not given, twice. > It smacks of laziness by law enforcement to suggest it's somehow impossible without encryption backdoors. It's difficult and I see what you're saying even if I don't yet agree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're thinking of mass shooting 2019/247, not mass shooting 2019/248. (Yes, we're up to more than one a day on average now) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...
I find lists like those very disingenuous. For example look at source 25 "During an attempted home invasion, shots were fired and four people were wounded". In other words, four criminals tried to rob a home but the resident of the house shot 4 of them and three of them are in the hospital and one has been released to jail. I wouldn't categories that incident along with the two recent "actual" mass shootings.
I cannot find anything disingenous about choosing an official definition and mentioning that it is problematic in the first paragraph.
We (HN commenters) all know that the demonization of encryption is bullshit. What we need to do is to figure out how to communicate that effectively to the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't know what your position is because the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and right to arms are both specifically enumerated in the fourth and second amendments, respectively.
I believe he’s talking about “the right to privacy”
The "right to privacy" refers to a bundle of other rights the state is already spitting all over in direct and obvious violation of the Constitution, and our judiciary is wasting the blood of our great nation's many dead martyrs.
That said, I believe privacy is such a lost cause at this point rayiner might still be arguing effectively for our remaining rights by throwing it to the dogs while they're sniffing for our guns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find lists like those very disingenuous. For example look at source 25 "During an attempted home invasion, shots were fired and four people were wounded". In other words, four criminals tried to rob a home but the resident of the house shot 4 of them and three of them are in the hospital and one has been released to jail. I wouldn't categories that incident along with the two recent "actual" mass shootings.
So your challenging the definition of a mass shooting they use because it somehow doesn't cohere with your personal thoughts about it. But the problem of defining a mass shooting and that various definitions are controversial is mentioned in the very first paragraph of that page. I cannot find anything disingenous about choosing an official definition and mentioning that it is problematic in the first paragraph.
From the article: Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrators, are shot in one location at roughly the same time.
That would have been a more suitable situation, I’m sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is politically more feasible to ban encryption in the US than it is to ban guns (or even significantly restrict them). Wait, I'm wrong. Even essentially insignificant changes to gun laws at the federal level are harder than banning crypto.
Can you please elaborate on why guns are so sacred in the US? Is it for cultural/historical reasons?
2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The first 10 "amendments", which are roughly/essentially contemporaneous with the original document, are referred to as the "Bill of Rights".