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

171–180 of 189 posts

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

#171

Post by robomartin »

ptcampbell wrote: post #166
robomartin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All semi-automatics should be banned My guess is this would not pass the constitutional test. Without being an attorney, I would think the question would be one of an interpretation of the second amendment in the context of the argument. That's where I am having trouble. What is the argument being made in the context of restricting a right? I know the intent or idea: If you can't fire at a rapid rate you can't hurt…

> If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins. I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example. > This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. So it's the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument performed in staccato with additional tedious rhetoric. Could it be that no one has s…

> I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example.

Their laws prevent it. That's the problem with these comparisons. You have to compare apples to apples. I'm sure they have pretty good gun control in North Korea. There's an app for that.

> Could it be that no one has satisfactorily answered your hypothetical questions because despite you obviously thinking that you've cornered someone with your brilliant socratic method, that you've actually just thrown up a few straw men that are not worth delving into?

No. People don't answer the question because the only honest answer exposes the fallacy in their thinking.

It's very simple, if guns cause violence then giving anyone a gun should turn them into criminals. However, the only way that can happen if for the person to make that decision. The weapon is not the root cause at all.

What is also interesting is that every anti-gun proponent I have presented with this scenario immediately resorts to personal attacks, insults, mischaracterization and more, anything except any approximation of an honest answer.

If you can't turn someone into a killer by handing them a gun, then, what makes a killer? Well, to begin with, not the gun. Maybe magical pixie dust?

I have over thirty years of work in all kinds of technology fields, from the motion picture industry to aerospace, small projects to billion dollar programs. I have yet to see anyone --ANYONE-- solve any problem by IGNORING root causes and focusing on the demonstrably irrelevant. That's the problem with this issue. It has become so polarized and political that nobody, on either side of the argument, wants to address root causes. Because, to borrow the term, these are inconvenient truths.

This is equivalent to: "I have a flat tire. OK, let's change the engine!"

Here's a tip: Insulting me or my argument does not fix the problem, does not save lives and does nothing towards fixing the real problem. If you are a US citizen and are truly interested in saving lives, stop pushing fantasies and get behind going after true root cause analysis. That's the ONLY way we make things better.

I guess I have to ask: What do your root cause analysis of the problem?

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

#172

Post by robomartin »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #165
robomartin wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that your original statement that these rights don't require government in order to exist ist just false. These rights require that they are taken seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government in order to exist in any meaningful sense. It may well be that having them written down in such a clear form as the Bill of Rights helps in forming that consensus, but in the end, the consensus…

The very concept of a civilized society requires everyone to living by the laws and rules that society agreed to as their guiding principles. When you live in the US the Constitution, perhaps, the most important of these rules.

If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood. Which sort of drives the point of the second amendment. That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one.

The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. YouTube is FULL of videos showing these kinds of situations. Anywhere else on earth you are far more likely to end-up in jail or worse.

That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference.

I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights.

I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme.

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

#173

Post by robomartin »

esoterica wrote: post #145
robomartin wrote: post #84

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 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”.

Every human is born free. Even in North Korea.

Not every society allows it's members to be free.

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

#174

Post by ptcampbell »

robomartin wrote: post #171
ptcampbell wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins. I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example. > This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. So it's the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument performed in staccato with additional tedious rhetoric. Could it be that no one has s…

> I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example. Their laws prevent it. That's the problem with these comparisons. You have to compare apples to apples. I'm sure they have pretty good gun control in North Korea. There's an app for that. > Could it be that no one has satisfactorily answered your hypothetical questions because despite you obviously thinking that you've cornered someone wit…

> Their laws prevent it. That's the problem with these comparisons. You have to compare apples to apples.

Oh, OK. Different then. Had better move on.

> I'm sure they have pretty good gun control in North Korea. There's an app for that.

But this glib comparison with North Korea makes a lot more sense.

> No. People don't answer the question because the only honest answer exposes the fallacy in their thinking.

Well, firstly, the questions just aren't very good. It would be like if I had asked

"Do you not believe children should go to school free from the fear of a mass shooting?"

"Do you think believe people have a right to feel safe?"

But I wouldn't be asking them in good faith.

> This is equivalent to: "I have a flat tire. OK, let's change the engine!"

No it isn't. It's generally considered one of many things governments around the world can do to reduce gun violence.

Problems have multiple causes and solutions.

More guns, more homicide.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...

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

#175

Post by Thorrez »

bborud wrote: post #114
Thorrez wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, some types of cryptography are classified as weapons by the US government. But I do favor a 1st amendment view of "right to cryptography" rather than a 2nd amendment view of it.

Are they? I thought they were just subject to the same export rules for convenience - the ones for weapons were reusable to achieve the wanted goal.

According to Wikipedia some cryptography is on a "munitions list". I'm not very familiar with the law though, so I guess I don't know if that really means it's classified as a weapon.

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

#176

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

robomartin wrote: post #172
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that your original statement that these rights don't require government in order to exist ist just false. These rights require that they are taken seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government in order to exist in any meaningful sense. It may well be that having them written down in such a clear form as the Bill of Rights helps in forming that consensus, but in the end, the consensus…

The very concept of a civilized society requires everyone to living by the laws and rules that society agreed to as their guiding principles. When you live in the US the Constitution, perhaps, the most important of these rules. If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood. Which sort of drives the poi…

How does any of that make your original statement true?

Also:

> If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood.

No, it doesn't, if there is sufficient consensus for authoritarianism. I mean, except for the few people who don't agree, maybe.

> That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one.

That seems very naive to me if you look at all the efforts to undermine those rights, including by the president himself.

> The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.

Then ... you are badly informed?

> That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference.

So ... you are agreeing then that it's about the consensus, not about the piece of paper?

> I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights.

And also, more often than not, they don't. But more importantly, you are making the argument against your original claim yourself here. What matters is the consensus, not the piece of paper. What matters is whether consequences are enforced on those who violate rights, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant". What matters is whether society at large and government in particular consider those rights important or not, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant".

> I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme.

Erm ... yeah, sure! I gather that it is perfectly comprehensible to you what it is like to live anywhere else, though, right?

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

#177

Post by robomartin »

roywiggins wrote: post #49
robomartin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> The tenth amendment?

IANSL, but I don’t think so. That would mean states could regulate anything in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech. That makes no sense to me at all because it would effectively make the BofR optional.

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

#178

Post by roywiggins »

robomartin wrote: post #177
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 tenth amendment? IANSL, but I don’t think so. That would mean states could regulate anything in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech. That makes no sense to me at all because it would effectively make the BofR optional.

The 10th Amendment says that the powers not forbidden to the states, or granted to the Feds, are left to the States, or the people.

Insofar as the 2nd amendment permits gun regulation (the exact contours have not yet been established by the courts), that power is still in the hands of the states.

State regulations on public carry are not a new idea: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and...

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

#179

Post by robomartin »

roywiggins wrote: post #178
robomartin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The tenth amendment? IANSL, but I don’t think so. That would mean states could regulate anything in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech. That makes no sense to me at all because it would effectively make the BofR optional.

The 10th Amendment says that the powers not forbidden to the states, or granted to the Feds, are left to the States, or the people. Insofar as the 2nd amendment permits gun regulation (the exact contours have not yet been established by the courts), that power is still in the hands of the states. State regulations on public carry are not a new idea: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and...

Yeah, I don't know. This starts getting into the deep technical details of law, history, precedent, etc. I have a feeling that, once you reach these depths, only people with the requisite legal training and knowledge can voice opinion with any degree of authority.

I suspect these are matters still waiting for the "Mother of all Supreme Court Cases". I wish we would take a solid year of time and have the SCOTUS, once and for all, look at this intricate puzzle and lend clarity to a very messy set of situations. Any outcome would be better than the legal limbo in which exist on this matter.

I would much prefer a society without guns BTW. That said, I am not diluted enough to think this is even remotely in the real of the plausible. That's why I prefer to push back against wasting energy trying to go for bans, confiscations and buy-backs that will never happen.

We need to go after the criminal or disturbed minds that seek to cause harm, regardless of the means through which they might accomplish this --from box cutters, through pressure cookers and, yes, guns.

I firmly believe this is an attainable goal. Far more attainable than clashing with the second amendment. This goal isn't without issues. For example, there are privacy laws that, quite literally, prevent a doctor from reporting someone who they believe might cause harm to others.

Nothing is simple. Some things are simpler than others. That does not mean they are easy.

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

#180

Post by whytaka »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #90
m_mueller wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To paraphrase George Carlin here: Google Japanese Americans in WW2 and then tell us again that you have rights the government can't take away.

What is the takeaway here? The government has done a lot of terrible things against its own people, especially when it thinks it’s making decisions “for the greater good” If anything that’s more of an argument for constitutional gun ownership than against it.

The takeaway is that rights, recognized or granted, are feeble concepts in the face of a frightened public.
Post reply on HN