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

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

#151

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

thrwaway69 wrote: post #105

robomartin wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

In the US, yes, absolutely, it is.

As long as you don't become violent or enter their private property you can say anything you want. You can stand there every day of the week for an entire year with a sign that says something like "religious vegans are criminals" and you are absolutely protected by the US Constitution. The police might come and talk to you to make sure you are not a threat (do you a gun illegally?) but as long as all you are doing is exercising your recognize right to free speech you can do that all day long.

You are only going to be the subject of a restraining order if you are a threat. No judge would grant a restraining order against someone peacefully exercising their first amendment right. If they did, if for some reason the group you are protesting lied and they got a restraining order they would be exposed to pretty serious legal consequences.

I don't particularly enjoy these videos, yet they are an example of how serious these rights are in the US. Some on this thread dismiss them as "just words on a piece of paper". Well, in this case those words made five people with guns walk away from someone they were not legally allowed to harass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJTOrkWUACI

Do this in most countries in the world and you'll find yourself in front of a judge with broken arms, a busted face and possibly almost dead...if you even get to the judge.

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

#152

Post by skybrian » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #118

skybrian wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ben Franklin would have done well on Twitter, but this is in essence a snappy Revolution War slogan, nothing more. It makes a false binary distinction and real world decisions are more complicated.

"real world decisions are more complicated" This argument is dismissive without actually addressing the argument. It's literally a logical fallacy called 'appeal to the stone'. Where's the nuance?

To expand it a little bit:

What does "deserve" mean in this slogan? Are people who made a strategic mistake undeserving of fair treatment? This sounds a lot like the con artist's rationale that his victims had it coming because they were stupid.

Also, which liberties are considered essential? What kind of safety are we talking about? If a mugger threatens you maybe you should cooperate? Should people on the losing side of a war always fight to the end? If you think the police are corrupt and you won't get a fair trial, should you allow yourself to be arrested?

I don't believe there is a simple slogan that tells you what to do in all situations.

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

#153

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

dtech wrote: post #128

robomartin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No argument there. I never understood the obsession with AR-15's when their contribution to crime, over, say, the last 20 years, is basically a rounding error. The only answer is: politics taking advantage of emotion for political gains. The best example of just how stupid the whole "assault ban gun" idea is found in Chicago, where the weekly carnage has not relented in years and the weapon of choice is nearly 100% h…

> No argument there. I never understood the obsession with AR-15's when their contribution to crime, over, say, the last 20 years, is basically a rounding error. The only answer is: politics taking advantage of emotion for political gains. And that it has been the weapon of choice for school shooters.

> And that it has been the weapon of choice for school shooters.

You know, if it is that difficult to take the time to run a few google searches before saying something it might be best to not say it at all. You are demonstrably wrong.

I don't understand why people don't take the time to ensure they are working with facts rather than parroting things they heard, or worse, believing things they imagine.

Here, I'll help you a little:

http://memepoliceman.com/which-kind-of-gun-is-used-most-in-s...

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-r-0057.htm

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in...

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/mass-shooting-gun-type-data/

All these shootings are horrible. Yet they have nothing to do with the hardware and everything to do with the software, the brains.

The proof of this statement is ridiculously simple:

Let's say I gave you a couple of handguns, an AR-15 and as much ammunition and training as necessary to make you a highly capable marksman.

After that, how long would it be for you to go out and kill a bunch of people at a mall, on the street or at a school?

Never?

The problem isn't the hardware, is it?

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

#154

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #83

salawat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are more intertwined than you think. What is gun control but the government asserting a right to pierce your privacy to the putative end of arms control? People don't look at it that way because people are used to looking at X and calling it X, Y and calling it Y, but not realizing both X and Y are subtypes of Z, so chipping away at X is chipping away at Z, even if you want to swear up and down the street it's o…

You and I have a natural right to self-defense, I don't know that you or I have a natural right to firearms. I'm a firearms owner and I love to hunt but I am not sure that people have a natural right to firearms, and from observation many people should not possess them due to personal negligence surrounding the awesome responsibilities attendant with firearms usage/mis-usage.

Although responsibility is important, firearms aren't an "awesome" responsibility. Millions of kids use firearms safely; some quite young. It's in the same ballpark as other ordinary responsibilities like driving, maintaining a swimming pool, using power tools, etc. As far as recreational activities, those involving guns aren't particularly dangerous (statistically).

There are something like 400M civilian-owned guns in the U.S. If it were an awesome responsibility, then we'd all be dead by now. But murder rates are low and either steady or declining.

It's easy to say that other people seem irresponsible, but we need to look at the data. Firearm accidents resulting in death are very rare.

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

#155

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #104

robomartin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think what's missing from this conversation is the mindset. In the United States, those words on paper are are respected by government and the people demand this to be the case. The culture is such that these things are not optional. Your right to free speech being a simple example.

If don't live in a country that behaves this way it is likely very difficult to understand how this could be.

I lived in Argentina during the time of military rule. I knew that any negative interaction with police could have terrible consequences for me. Even death. Sure, there were laws in place that were supposed to protect me and others, but that didn't stop anyone from committing atrocities because the culture did not honor laws as is the case in the US. I remember being detained with a group of friends coming out of a movie. We where put-up against a wall, spread legs and arms, frisked, interrogated, harassed, laughed-at and held for over an hour. Once the cops were done having their fun they threw all of our ID's on the ground and let us go.

It took me YEARS after coming to the US to not have my blood pressure rise when interacting with cops. I mean, even having a cop car behind me was stressful. After a while you understand that things here are different. When we say "this is a nation of laws" it isn't something that goes on a bumper sticker, it has real meaning. I have a lot of cop friends and even trained at an Aikido dojo for years that was nearly 90% law enforcement. Context is important and the context is culture and laws.

If you want to argue about what would happen if the US government went off the rails and decided to do as they wished against the population. Well, I am sure there's a good movie in there somewhere. Until then, it's just silly.

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

#156

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #133

robomartin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. What is your point? Even if noone cares about what that piece of paper says, it still has "weight and meaning"? Or are you just repeating what I said using slightly different words, i.e., in a country where people care about what that piece of paper says, what that piece of paper says has weight and meaning? > If, on the other hand, we are tal…

I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

In the US the Bill of Rights is taken very seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government. That's just the way it is.

Forgive me, I just don't know what you are trying to communicate.

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

#157

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

esoterica wrote: post #146

robomartin wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stop using movie scenes as the basis for your ideas of how the universe works. Do you really see two people, face-to-face, pulling out guns to see who gets shot first? C'mon! This is laughable.

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

#158

Post by robomartin » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #106

robomartin wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You're conflating SCOTUS role as an arbiter of law

Well, that's what they do!

How else do we decide then? Do I get to drive 150 miles per hour because I don't think the speed limit laws are factually correct? After all, I am quite capable, I have spent thousands of dollars learning and practicing race car driving and if I am on an absolutely empty road...

You can't pick and choose what laws you should obey. We are talking about rights here. The Bill of Rights for that matter. This isn't about where you should cross the street.

This is silly.

Look, the laws are what they are.

If you don't like them, go put your case in front of the SCOTUS and argue your point.

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

#159

Post by blackflame » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #122

blackflame wrote: post #78

I’m a republican and I totally disagree with Barr’s push. I honestly believe that once enough people explain to Trump the implications of unlocking one phone he’s pragmatic enough not to unbottle that genie. He’s been much more reserved than many would have expected given the loudness of his bark.

I guess that may be part of the issue. For better or worse, I check president's twitter feed from time to time and one of his recent shares includes a talking point about Apple not helping with the phone. One would think he would want to not let goverment have this power, but, well, perception of things depend on where you sit. Right now he sits in the WH.

If you recall, this situation happen before with Barack Obama as president. Eventually he dropped it because something new and more important will come up a sure as sunrise. It seems to be bipartisan if you ask me. It boils down to do the ends justify the means and that doesn’t split among party lines.

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

#160

Post by ohazi » Sat, Jan 18, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

karmelapple wrote: post #138

ohazi wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right of course, but theory and practice look very different. The "I don't care how cryptography works, why can't we just have a backdoor?" crowd is imagining that a magical piece of "common sense" legislation is capable of solving this problem. Yes, they can pass something , but it isn't going to work . Because two days after it passes, they'll have courts full of obstinate people who refuse to provide keys f…

Why does jailing someone for breaking the law show how unsolved a problem is? Marijuana use is something thousands (millions?) of people have had jail time or other significant repercussions that have negatively impacted their life. If encryption is outlawed, I see no reason why jails wouldn’t fill up if people started wrapping their own backdoor-less crypto around whatever else is used.

Jailing someone for refusing to reveal a secret doesn't cause that secret to be revealed.

What is the problem they're trying to solve? They claim to want a "reveal secrets" button, but for any determined person or for any secret of consequence, the button won't work.

Yes, jails will fill up, war-on-drugs style, but my argument is that filling up jails isn't a good goal given what they claim they wait. So my only conclusion is that they're either lying about what they want, or they're idiots. Both seem plausible.