121–130 of 255 posts
Guns can be used for crime, including child sexual abuse and terrorism, so why shouldn't we ban them too? Right to bear arms is in the constitution, and so is the right to unreasonable search/seizure.
You will live and die before we get into banning things just because there are bad, or mentally unstable people in this world.
If I were arguing by analogy I would ask why we allow door locks. Door locks let people do bad things inside their houses. Yet we are all safer from criminals because of them, overall. And it also helps keep police honest about getting a warrant first before they disturb your house.
The counter argument I've heard to that is that there is no such thing as an unbreakable lock. If someone is doing something illegal in a building, the government can eventually get in. Strong encryption is effectively unbreakable, and basically free for anyone to use. Trying to make a faciliy even remotely as secure is going to take millions of dollars because you need to not only secure the lock, but the entire fac…
The only antidote is an emotional connection with history and the reality of oppresion around the world today. No one who feels like they "have nothing to hide" can be convinced of the value of privacy until they have made an emotional connection with the oppressed and see themselves as potential victims. Anything these people think of as "normal" activities has at one point or another been made illegal by a governme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn’t they come to me then and look into my phone instead of constantly looking into my messages on the server? I think the door is a great analogy.
and if you say "no", they're screwed. Whereas with a door, they can just push you out of the way and kick it down. I'm opposed to back doors, but the door analogy is a bad one.
Given this door analogy works for the majority of the arguments being presented (which is impressive in itself given how different the physical and electronic worlds are), I'd say it's actually a pretty good analogy.
Politicians propose to forbid all buildings from having doors. After all "bad people/stuff etc." could lock the doors and hide behind them. Anyone arguing against that is obviously against safety. Counterpoints: - Do we currently have a big door problem? - Wait, don't doors also serve an important function? - Won't that make everybody much more insecure and basically do nothing against "bad stuff"? - What if I put a…
I'm not sure this is a great analogy as yes, we permit people to have doors and locks but society also provides a mechanism for the government to lawfully get access to them. If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in. The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extensio…
Some buildings are barricaded to make forced entry harder, some phones are more secure which makes hacking into them harder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see these comparisons made so, so frequently and it bothers me. Guns are not the same as encryption or cars. Yet they're so often made in apples to apples comparisons that it's mind boggling to me. Weapons are uniquely special in that they are specifically designed to maim and kill. Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war. Arguably, if there was E2E software that was specifically designed…
The argument is: If you (USA) accept that kids are harmed due to lack of gun control, then do not use harm to kids as an argument against E2E encryption. It is hypocritical.