161–170 of 417 posts
Is the American government position “Guns don’t kill people, encryption kills people”, or am I just combining the personal opinions of a bunch of unrelated people who work for the government?
In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm [0]. The vast majority of these people have never had a serious brush with law enforcement, but some significant portion would refuse to part with their guns if a ban were enacted tomorrow. While it is said that nearly all Americans are felons [1], most Americans do not intentionally commit felonies or think of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really does seem to be that is the position. There are a lot of backwards nutjobs in the government right now, blaming other backwards nutjobs, while the rest of us sane people are trying to duct tape society together. Guns don't kill people, encryption doesn't kill people, backwards nutjobs kill people. Politics in America, currently, can entirely be summed up as the Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme.
More like guns either kill people or look pretty on a wall; encryption not only can't kill people, it also prevents people from stealing. Even a nutjob armed with the latest encryption, still needs a gun to kill people.
I dunno, I'm pretty sure a determined enough assailant could beat someone to death with a hardcover copy of PGP Source Code and Internals.
> Attorney General William Barr said in a speech last month that encrypted messaging services allow "criminals to operate with impunity." The cost of encryption is “ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims — men, women and children who are the victims of crimes, crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence," This disgraceful, emotionally manipu…
If Apple does not give you the tools to decrypt messages on their phones, doesn't that make it "impossible" to automate, where automate is defined as any version of "decrypting the data on the phone"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would characterize the home invaders as the "perpetrators" in that particular story and exclude them from the injury count, consistent with the language of that definition. 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…
Ugh, everyone loves to dredge up gun violence archive and use it as an authorative source and it's trash. They deliberately inflate the numbers of "mass shootings" by changing the definition from the FBI definition (itself occasionally modified for political reasons). The net result is that every half assed gangland drive-by with a handgun gets lumped in and people don't understand that. Outside of Chiraq and a coupl…
Of course, you're less likely to get shot in Europe. If you start cherry picking locations, on the other hand, then I guess the US is 100% safe and crime-free, provided you take your mom's basement as reference area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, there are more firearms than people. About one-third of all households have at least one firearm [0]. The vast majority of these people have never had a serious brush with law enforcement, but some significant portion would refuse to part with their guns if a ban were enacted tomorrow. While it is said that nearly all Americans are felons [1], most Americans do not intentionally commit felonies or think of…
Why do you assume a ban would take effect "suddenly"? As you rightly point out, it would make no sense to apply a gun ban instantly, tricking millions of Americans into technically becoming felons.
Is the American government position “Guns don’t kill people, encryption kills people”, or am I just combining the personal opinions of a bunch of unrelated people who work for the government?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He posted a manifesto online. Think his motive was pretty clearly outlined in it.
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...
Counting them like this is extremely depressing yet accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like guns either kill people or look pretty on a wall; encryption not only can't kill people, it also prevents people from stealing. Even a nutjob armed with the latest encryption, still needs a gun to kill people.
> Even a nutjob armed with the latest encryption, still needs a gun to kill people. I dunno, I'm pretty sure a determined enough assailant could beat someone to death with a hardcover copy of PGP Source Code and Internals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it’s an iPhone, the data is encrypted with a key derived from the PIN and a random key that is baked into the phone’s CPU. The CPU has instructions for encrypting and decrypting with this secret key but no instruction for reading the key directly. Short of decapping the chip and going in with an electron microscope to figure out what this key is, your only option is to brute force on the phone’s own CPU. But that…
So why don't they decap the chip and go in with an electron microscope? Has that type of exploit ever been successfully used against modern devices, or is it only a theoretical vulnerability?