191–200 of 367 posts
> (R-SC)...(R-AR)...(R-TN) It's funny how you can read just that and know that the bill is going to be absurdly bad. Not even just bad in the philosophical/political sense but actually just bad as in not understanding the problem space, or not even formulated clearly or coherently.
Are you saying that Rs or people from southern states are incapable of critical and analytical thinking?
(Just saw an opportunity for a joke and took it)
Please stop voting dumbasses in the US, it affects everyone living in countries who have commercial agreements with then
Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same trade-off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II I study WW2, and it's important to be factual. The correct term is internment camps. Japanese-Americans usually lost their property, but the purpose was to locate them in central locations, not to re-educate or liquidate them, as our enemies did to the Allies. For that time in history, it could be argued that the decision made sense. Japanese subs d…
>For that time in history, it could be argued that the decision made sense. Japanese subs did shell the US mainland, and Japanese-Americans in Hawaii did help a Japanese aircrew try to escape after Pearl Harbor. Japan planned to return to Hawaii after Midway to occupy Hawaii. It could also be argued that it made sense to do the same for Germans since we had a minority of Germans siding with Hitler and even holding Na…
Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same t…
Sure. The 4th Amendment has nothing against anything that preserves secure communications.
> It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them.
No, they are proclaiming that getting dangerous people is so important that the privacy rights like those in the Fourth Amendment shouldn't apply, which tendency is exactly why we have the Fourth Amendment.
Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same t…
Crypto is classified as an armament for export control. I’m keeping mine under the second amendment, since the folks who wrote this bill seem to care about that one. As an aside: does that mean US DoD will get a back door as well? As a secure provider with over 1M users that required encryption at rest and in transit I think they should be the first to give up the keys to law enforcement.
> (R-SC)...(R-AR)...(R-TN) It's funny how you can read just that and know that the bill is going to be absurdly bad. Not even just bad in the philosophical/political sense but actually just bad as in not understanding the problem space, or not even formulated clearly or coherently.
Are you saying that Rs or people from southern states are incapable of critical and analytical thinking?
Do we need an amendment to the constitution? We can't keep fighting these fights. Eventually they will win.
What’s the situation when two (ostensibly friendly) superpowers, the US and EU, have totally mutually incompatible laws regarding something totally transnational? I’m not asking rhetorically, I’m asking legally, what is a company to do if they want to do business in both locations?