Live data from Hacker News

Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

wsj.com

41–50 of 189 posts

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#41

Go through each of the Bill of Rights, and for each produce a scenario where that right would be used by a criminal to protect him or her from planning, executing, and avoiding detection of a crime. All individual rights are carved out from the default government, which is the one that takes absolute authority over all within its domain. North Korea is closest to this ideal today, but most vanilla monarchies were lik…

> All individual rights are carved out from the default government Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government i…

> The typical cry is "We should do the same". Well, we can't. Government did not grant, nor does it own that right.

No, we can do that. The government can merely assume the power, as governments so often do.

Paper is not a defense. A "Bill of Rights" containing only a single right would be of zero value.

What is a defense is the bundling of recognized rights, as in the Bill of Rights. It's like an alliance: an assault on any one right is an assault on them all. If a large majority of people would rally behind a single right (maybe freedom of speech?), then the right is not seriously in danger (for now). The rights which are in danger need to be bundled so that the whims of a particular time and place do not permanently sacrifice a right.

When a particular right is borderline unpopular -- perhaps the right to keep and bear arms -- that provides a lever to pry away all of our rights, and we must prevent that. When you look at the wave of gun laws being proposed and passed, you'll see how obvious it is that they are an assault on the entire Bill of Rights (for instance "red flag" laws are a clear violation of due process).

The Gun Safety movement is a rerun of the Drug War. A bunch of reasonable-sounding people concerned about their community used as pawns to push a very different agenda. In the case of the Drug War, it was violating the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments to oppress political enemies (hippies and blacks). In the case of the Gun Safety movement, it's violating the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendments to oppress political enemies (rural/Christian/whatever).

The reason we end up with ridiculous laws -- like harsher punishments for crack than powder; or laws restricting foldable stocks on rifles[1] -- is because those laws are not ridiculous when you understand the real agenda.

[1] If the goal is to reduce murders, then rifles are an absurd place to start. Knives are a much more common murder weapon. So are "Hands, fists, feet, etc.". Even in Texas, where there are few rifle laws. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#42

There's a balance that must be struck between the efficiency of law enforcement and the freedom of citizens. Personally, I lean heavily towards the latter, and I think this is the reason: My life and the lives of those I know are affected by criminals or terrorists with absurdly low frequency. I'm sure this is true of many Americans; perhaps more true now than ever in history. So why is it that there is so much suppo…

Oftentimes systemic crime manifests more as an erosion of trust in institutions and the healthy functioning of a society than as something which impacts individuals in a direct way on a regular basis.

For instance, consider Mexican organized crime (cartels). Cartels wield a huge amount of illicit influence and generally make everyone's lives much worse, but most people aren't being kidnapped or confronted by cartels on a daily basis. Their lives are certainly affected by them, but in mostly indirect ways.

Cancerous organized crime and its enablement by coerced and voluntary corruption within Government and business represents an existential threat to developed societies. Many of us take for granted our nation's peace and prosperity, in spite of the creeping threat of organized crime and corruption being ever present.

Law enforcement not being able to access encrypted data severely limits our ability to prosecute and convict criminals who use these secure communications to conduct their business, and brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer.

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#43
The differences in opinion on this topic are almost entirely defined by whether or not the person has the most basic understanding of what cryptography actually is.

Comment #1:

> This argument is pointless. No government has jurisdiction over the laws of mathematics. No government can prevent encryption. No government can keep people from layering their own encryption over whatever flawed system the government mandates.

Comment #2:

> Encryption is an issue that Congress needs to resolve. However, there has not been any leadership on this issue for several decades. Apparently, there is no lobby and fundraising money to be made by either party and it does not win any votes, so Congress is not interested. Until the leadership vacuum in Congress is resolved this problem and many others will not go away.

It's obvious where Barr falls:

> Mr. Barr was surprised and puzzled, according to people familiar with the meeting. The government was struggling with similar problems when he first served as attorney general nearly 30 years ago, he told advisers. Why had they not been solved?

Maybe we should be teaching this stuff in high school. The pseudocode for RSA is like twelve lines. Outlawing it is not practical.

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#44
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All individual rights are carved out from the default government Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government i…

> > All individual rights are carved out from the default government > Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. > Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require govern…

> All organizations seek to expand their influence and power over time

This is true.

IANAL, but my guess is that a lot of this mucking around with firearms regulations is because people have not said "enough!" and taken it all the way up to the US Supreme Court (except for a few cases I am aware of).

In other words, can California (or any State) really prohibit magazines with more than 10 rounds? Can they really prohibit any kind of carry (concealed or not)? Where exactly is it that they --the government-- acquired the right to do such things.

Again, let's get away from firearms and talk about free speech. This is a stupid example, but, let's say that CA passes a law that makes it illegal to say more than 5 expletives in one minute. Do they have the right and power to pass such a law? No, they don't. They don't have the power to restrict speech AT ALL, because this is a right that is recognized --NOT GRANTED-- in the US constitution. Government does not own it and cannot take it away.

Many would then say: Well, you can't yell "fire" in a theater.

Sure you can! Try it! Well, don't, you'll get in trouble for it. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of what you choose to say. That's another common misconception. You can say whatever you want. And you can enjoy the full consequences of what you said.

The same is true of firearms. You can shoot them anywhere you want. And you can enjoy the consequences of your actions just as well. Just like you can drive your car into a tree if you want to.

This is one of those topics that has been completely twisted and contorted by zealots. In the US it is very simple: Our rights do not come from government. Period. Which means they can't take them away. When they do overstep their bounds we have to go to the courts to put them back in their place. That happens from time to time when people have enough.

I'll give you an example of just how ridiculous things can get. Here in California you basically can't protect yourself in any way. You can't conceal-carry a firearm (like in a purse or holster). You can't have a knife larger than something like a Swiss army knife. You can't have nunchuks, a pipe, a wooden staff, a baseball bat, a chain, nothing. You cannot legally go for a walk with some kind of a self-defense weapon other than a really mean dog or perhaps some pepper spray (2.5 ounces or less). In other words, I can't have two pieces of wood tied together with a rope.

If you think about the concept of a truly free human being on this planet and then contemplate the idea of that person not being able to defend themselves against criminals, well, it's truly surreal.

Like I said, IANAL, and I am not pro or anti firearm at all. I am neutral in this regard. I am looking at the Bill of Rights as a whole, not at any particular right. They are all co-equal and even interconnected. I just think some of the things we are seeing at State levels only exist because enough people haven't had enough and there hasn't been a "mother of all challenges" at the Supreme Court level.

I mean, what's the use of having a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution if any schmuck at the State level can defecate all of these rights at will?

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#45

There's a balance that must be struck between the efficiency of law enforcement and the freedom of citizens. Personally, I lean heavily towards the latter, and I think this is the reason: My life and the lives of those I know are affected by criminals or terrorists with absurdly low frequency. I'm sure this is true of many Americans; perhaps more true now than ever in history. So why is it that there is so much suppo…

"Why does it seem like the less people are affected by crime, the more they abhor it and feel the need to root it out to the last, no matter the cost?"

Frequent problems are invisible. Rare problems are news.

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#46

There's a balance that must be struck between the efficiency of law enforcement and the freedom of citizens. Personally, I lean heavily towards the latter, and I think this is the reason: My life and the lives of those I know are affected by criminals or terrorists with absurdly low frequency. I'm sure this is true of many Americans; perhaps more true now than ever in history. So why is it that there is so much suppo…

You could argue that the whole gun carrying ethos in the USA is flawed for the same reasons.

There was a time when it made sense, and now it's driven by other forces (nation scale emotions?)

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#47

There's a balance that must be struck between the efficiency of law enforcement and the freedom of citizens. Personally, I lean heavily towards the latter, and I think this is the reason: My life and the lives of those I know are affected by criminals or terrorists with absurdly low frequency. I'm sure this is true of many Americans; perhaps more true now than ever in history. So why is it that there is so much suppo…

Oftentimes systemic crime manifests more as an erosion of trust in institutions and the healthy functioning of a society than as something which impacts individuals in a direct way on a regular basis. For instance, consider Mexican organized crime (cartels). Cartels wield a huge amount of illicit influence and generally make everyone's lives much worse, but most people aren't being kidnapped or confronted by cartels…

> Law enforcement not being able to access encrypted data severely limits our ability to prosecute and convict criminals who use these secure communications to conduct their business, and brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer.

The impact of organized crime pales in comparison to that of authoritarian regimes. The "creeping threat of social decay" argument gives me chills; it's exactly the slogan I imagine at the head of the movement that finally ends democracy.

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#48

Go through each of the Bill of Rights, and for each produce a scenario where that right would be used by a criminal to protect him or her from planning, executing, and avoiding detection of a crime. All individual rights are carved out from the default government, which is the one that takes absolute authority over all within its domain. North Korea is closest to this ideal today, but most vanilla monarchies were lik…

> All individual rights are carved out from the default government Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government i…

> In other words, these rights don't require government in order to exist.

wat.

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#49
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > All individual rights are carved out from the default government > Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. > Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require govern…

> All organizations seek to expand their influence and power over time This is true. IANAL, but my guess is that a lot of this mucking around with firearms regulations is because people have not said "enough!" and taken it all the way up to the US Supreme Court (except for a few cases I am aware of). In other words, can California (or any State) really prohibit magazines with more than 10 rounds? Can they really proh…

> In other words, can California (or any State) really prohibit magazines with more than 10 rounds? Can they really prohibit any kind of carry (concealed or not)? Where exactly is it that they --the government-- acquired the right to do such things.

The tenth amendment?

Re: Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

#50

Go through each of the Bill of Rights, and for each produce a scenario where that right would be used by a criminal to protect him or her from planning, executing, and avoiding detection of a crime. All individual rights are carved out from the default government, which is the one that takes absolute authority over all within its domain. North Korea is closest to this ideal today, but most vanilla monarchies were lik…

> All individual rights are carved out from the default government Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government i…

I think it's unfortunate to leap from the right to privacy to the right bear arms. These are both good topics for debate and I actually support gun rights but they are different, large questions and this leap is effectively a thread derail.
Post reply on HN