Barr’s Encryption Push Is Decades in the Making • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by roywiggins » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #58

roywiggins wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "the people", therefore the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States", and therefore the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people.

Even Antonin Scalia's opinion in Heller allowed that gun regulation was not entirely forbidden by the 2nd amendment. Exactly how much is allowed was left pretty unclear.

But insofar as some is allowed, the ability of the States to do it is specified in the 10th.

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

#142

Post by agumonkey » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #77

agumonkey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

There will never be a time where it won't make sense. Governments can and do become tyrannical and the population should always have the right and the means to wage war against it instead of suffering helplessly under its boot.

But right now people don't have guns to defend against the state but against their neighbours.

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

#143

Post by nickthemagicman » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #136

nickthemagicman wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's groups out there I'm sure that could make the justification that something like 'the war on drugs' or 'the war on belly fat' means we're not at peacetime.

I think this is the first case the Supreme Court heard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey Because of the lack of any prior Third Amendment jurisprudence, this decision established three important holdings not previously articulated: (1) that the National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment; (2) that the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, i.e., is incorp…

That appears to address the 'occupation' part but not the 'at war' part.

Is that settled? Just because they didn't use it in the past doesn't mean they won't try in the future.

Things are going on right now in Washington that are completely unprecedented up to this point.

What caselaw defines 'at war' as it pertains to the third?

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

#144

Post by bigwavedave » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #142

matheusmoreira wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will never be a time where it won't make sense. Governments can and do become tyrannical and the population should always have the right and the means to wage war against it instead of suffering helplessly under its boot.

But right now people don't have guns to defend against the state but against their neighbours.

Those two aren't even close to being mutually exclusive.

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

#145

Post by esoterica » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #84

esoterica wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all people inherently born free All people are born vulnerable to being beaten up and coerced by the guy with the biggest club. There is no "inherent" freedom in nature.

> All people are born vulnerable to being beaten up and coerced by the guy with the biggest club. There is no "inherent" freedom in nature. Sure there is! You are not prevented from grabbing a stick and defending yourself by some artifice. You might lose. Or win. And you are free to make that choice. In CA if someone comes at me with a baseball bat and I have two sticks tied together with a short piece of rope to def…

By your logic, you are also “free” in an oppressive state like North Korea since you have the option of defying and rebelling against the government. You might win or lose, but you are “free to make that choice”.

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

#146

Post by esoterica » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #100

cycomanic wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > All people are born vulnerable to being beaten up and coerced by the guy with the biggest club. There is no "inherent" freedom in nature. > Sure there is! You are not prevented from grabbing a stick and defending yourself by some artifice. You might lose. Or win. And you are free to make that choice. > In CA if someone comes at me with a baseball bat and I have two sticks tied together with a short piece of rope…

Your perspective on this is truly twisted. Talk to crime victims and see how many speak about a sense of self importance or some illusion of heroism. I was attacked by a thief with a knife when I was in my 20’s. This shit is real. Don’t generalize it to ascribe some kind of a Hollywood fantasy/caricature and intent.

If you are robbed by someone with a weapon, escalating the confrontation by pulling a gun out dramatically increases your chance of getting hurt. It doesn’t make you safer.

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

#147

Post by nickthemagicman » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

wpearse wrote: post #116

robomartin wrote: post #34

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…

> bare arms = no shirt (or just a singlet?) Bear arms = wander around with weapons. (Alternatively, have [black|brown|polar|panda] bears for your upper limbs/arms?) I love English.

The right to own taxidermied bear arms.

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

#148

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

The entire "going dark" narrative presupposes that the era of the wiretap is the one true background from which to judge the present. But long before there was a wiretap a warrant was mostly useless for listening in on private conversations because there was nothing to wiretap and nothing to wiretap with.

Was the pre-telephone and pre-microphone era some kind of lawless hell on earth where law enforcement was completely helpless to do anything?

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

#149

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #124

robomartin wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. This is about a difference in law and not about being special in any way. Also, don’t fall into generalizations of “Americans” and the whole “greatest country in the world” meme. This isn’t Star Trek, where all Klingons are a uniform cultural and behavioral monoblock.

Don't often hear folks from the US complain about being stereotyped. Fair enough though, so long as it's applied consistently.

My opinion of this is that it has to come from movies and perhaps that portion of our mass media that is seen outside of the US.

I remember watching CNN in my hotel room in Munich the first time I traveled to Europe a few decades back. I was absolutely horrified. Seriously. I used to watch CNN almost exclusively here in the US. In case someone wants to come back with a Fox News comment, know that at the time FNN did not even exist (it came on air in 1996).

My first thought after watching CNN in my room in Europe was: Our enemies could not pay for better negative coverage of the US. I mean, it was horrible. Brutally negative. And very different from the CNN programming we were exposed to in the US. It made me realize why so many people had negative views of the US. Not the sole reason, of course, but this was quite shocking.

The other thing you have to realize in terms of the US is that this is far from a mono-cultural population, very far. There's tremendous cultural variety from coast to coast and north to south. And even within each region, cultures vary. I mean, just speaking of myself, while a US citizen, I come from both Latin American and Middle Eastern cultural backgrounds. By that I mean that I speak multiple languages, grew up in multiple cultures and feel at home in any of them.

And so, stereotyping Americans is, well, at the end of the day, fairly ignorant. I don't mean that as an insult but rather as a factual statement. Anyone who lumps "Americans" (as in the entire US population) under one category, culture or school of thought simply does not know what they are talking about.

Since we are talking about this, the term "American" sounds offensive (and ignorant) to a lot of people. How dare they call themselves "American"! That's a continent, not a country!

Well the name of the country is United States of America. In the case of Italy you can call yourself "Italian", France, "French", etc. What are you supposed to do with "United States of America"? Call yourself "United States-ian?". That's how you come to "American". This used to bother me until I understood where it came from and it made total sense.

BTW, there are other countries who do this kind of thing:

Mexico's official name is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" or "United States of Mexico".

Brazil's official name is "República Federativa do Brasil" or "Federal Republic of Brazil"

In English we call them "Mexican" and "Brazilian" for short, just like people from the USA are called "American".

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

#150

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #99

robomartin wrote: post #34

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…

This distinction is mostly philosophical and historical in as much as it forms part of how these issues are framed. No person except perhaps a few strange fanatical monarchists goes around in the UK and thinks of themselves as subjects of the queen rather than citizens, for example. The framing of where rights comes from can affect debate, but in and of itself it says very little about to what extent you can expect e…

> This distinction is mostly philosophical and historical

Not in a court of law, where it matters. We can be dismissive, but this distinction has true and legal significance. As I mentioned in one of my notes, this is the reason the government of New Zealand can decide to confiscate weapons while, in the US, it is so close to impossible that it is.

> laws, even constitutions, can be changed, and regularly are

Laws and the US Constitution are two different things.

The US Constitution can be changed, yes, but it virtually impossible. This is particularly true of REMOVING rights in the Bill of Rights.

In order to make any change you need --by law, as spelled out in the constitution:

    2/3 majority vote in the US Senate.
    AND
    2/3 majority vote in the US House of Representatives.
    AND
    3/4 of State Legislatures approve it (via direct vote or ratifying convention).

The other way is:

    2/3 of State Legislatures ask the US Congress (House and Senate) to hold a constitutional convention.
    AND
    3/4 of State Legislatures approve it (via direct vote or ratifying convention).

In other words, it is just-about impossible, particularly given today's political climate.

There's a practical element to this. Proponents of enhanced gun control (or gun confiscation) are wasting a ton of time, energy and money in an exercise in futility. It would be far more productive to focus on addressing the real causes of gun violence than to try and remove constitutional rights from people who have never and will never harm anyone.