Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 189 posts

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

#101

Post by nathias »

robomartin wrote: post #34
javajosh wrote: post #19

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…

How does stopping to recognize a right differ from stopping to grant a right in practice?

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

#102

Post by feanaro »

joe_the_user wrote: post #53
ohazi wrote: post #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 mandat…

I sympathize with your position but I think we need to imagine the counter argument the state would make. That argument would be "you don't understand the determination of the state. If you are correct and the threat exists in basic arithmatic and if we determine the threat is too great, we outlaw basic arithmatic. That is the level the state will go to." See O'Brien's speech in concerning "if we determine that 1+1 e…

Perhaps this is a signal that such a state needs to be deconstructed itself.

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

#103

Post by robomartin »

jacobolus wrote: post #97
robomartin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you are wrong. That is, unless you are a constitutional scholar with powers the supersede those of the US Supreme Court. In "Heller" (2008), as the case is generally known, the US Supreme Court explored the history of the Second Amendment and established that it creates an INDIVIDUAL right not linked to a militia or army. This was confirmed once again by the US Supreme Court in another case in 2010. There's a p…

Heller was a 5:4 decision made against text, history, and precedent by radical judicial activists. The decision doesn’t stand up to historical or logical scrutiny, and it was accompanied by a very forceful dissent. Justice Scalia’s claim to being guided by “originalism” and “textualism” was shown to be a hypocritical farce by this and similar rulings.

Ah, OK, so any 5-4 SCOTUS decision is not valid then? How do we decide laws then? Can I ignore the ones I don’t like? And how about McDonald in 2010.

See, that’s the problem with gun haters, their solution is to mess with the rights of everyone. Let’s go! Let’s take that approach to everything. No more cars, knives, hammers, medicine, planes, trains, rocks, pressure cookers, chains, pieces of wood, ropes, etc. Let’s ban everything that could ever be used to harm anyone. For that matter, let’s castrate all men to prevent rape too.

At some point reason needs to prevail. The problem has nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with the brain. This is so irrefutable it’s silly.

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

#104

Post by vidarh »

robomartin wrote: post #98
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 in order to exist. We are recognized to have them and government can't do a thing about it other than to respect and protect them. Imagine a bakery puts out a sign that says "the bread you can buy here was…

No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. If, on the other hand, we are talking about complete anarchy and the end of laws as our guiding principles then, yes, sure, in that case words on paper do not matter. Until then...

That is exactly the point: These things have weight and meaning as a consequence of there being a country of laws that recognizes them. Without a political entity to recognize or enforce them, they are just words. They're not some inherent property of people or nature, but concepts created through law and enforcement of law.

As such how they are worded is no protection - only peoples willingness to resist changes is actual protection against rights being eroded.

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

#105

Post by thrwaway69 »

robomartin wrote: post #95
leeoniya wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's another common misconception. You can say whatever you want. And you can enjoy the full consequences of what you said. if the government can make these rules and bring these consequences, then what exactly is free about this "free" speech? north koreans are free to say whatever they want, too, and enjoy the full consequences of what they say. the only difference is what kind of speech can bring what severity…

The difference should be obvious: In the one case, if your speech causes harm to others (i.e.: you incite a crowd to attack me) the consequences of your actions lead to legal repercussions. In the other case all you have to do is look at the supreme ruler the wrong way and you are dead. This is precisely my case: Our laws come from us, not them, not government.

I fail to understand the distinction in a way that would be generally applicable though.

I lack the cultural context for US but in many other cultures, expressing a valid rational position can be actively harmful to one.

At what point something becomes harassment? Can you give me more details?

Suppose I am actively promoting eating beef in public space near a very religious vegan settlement. Is that speech protected or not?

It is targetting people based on their belief but the whole spectrum of who it is not clear at all unless one intends to assume malice and fill in the gaps. All I would be doing is to promote eating beef because it's good and healthy.

Does placing restrictions on where you can talk violates your free speech despite it being public property? Say, a restraining order or something similar.

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

#106

Post by vidarh »

robomartin wrote: post #103
jacobolus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heller was a 5:4 decision made against text, history, and precedent by radical judicial activists. The decision doesn’t stand up to historical or logical scrutiny, and it was accompanied by a very forceful dissent. Justice Scalia’s claim to being guided by “originalism” and “textualism” was shown to be a hypocritical farce by this and similar rulings.

Ah, OK, so any 5-4 SCOTUS decision is not valid then? How do we decide laws then? Can I ignore the ones I don’t like? And how about McDonald in 2010. See, that’s the problem with gun haters, their solution is to mess with the rights of everyone. Let’s go! Let’s take that approach to everything. No more cars, knives, hammers, medicine, planes, trains, rocks, pressure cookers, chains, pieces of wood, ropes, etc. Let’s…

You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law vs. whether or not their decision is factually correct. A 5-4 decision is binding, but no decision is automatically factually correct just because SCOTUS made it, whether it is unanimous or 5-4.

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

#107

Post by skrebbel »

Simon_says wrote: post #87
javajosh wrote: post #19

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…

Amendment 3 is pretty tough.

Googled it so you don't have to:

"The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime."

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

#109

Post by newguy1234 »

javajosh wrote: post #19

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…

Yup and these days I would say that individuals need to go the extra step by using technologies to ensure their rights are never violated. Simply having the right written into law is not good enough anymore.
Post reply on HN