Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication • Hacker News Board

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#111

Post by KnightHawk3 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #95

de_Selby wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about priva…

I am not american either, so what? you completely disregard that any handgun, including these mythical "assault rifles" (which is stupid term by definition, it's usage which defines purpose, so why there aren't any assault pistols?) is just a tool, needing a trained hand to be used. as described below, automatic weapons are not purchasable for civilians, only their modified versions that allow single shot per trigger…

I am Australian and mostly agree with the gun laws in my country.

>P.S. one last thing - pro-gun-ban people completely disregard gun shooting as a means for hunting and as a fun activity at range. Many weapons, including mentioned AR-15 (civilian version of popular M16) will never be shot outside shooting range. Why use higher caliber guns instead of some puny .22? Because it's more fun!

From my understanding, removing these guns will save lives, at least one. Why is having fun more important than peoples lives?

I genuinely do not understand. Things like Marihuana only `hurt` the user for the most part where guns, if they hurt someone, is almost always not the user.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#112

Post by bhauer » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:32 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #84

bhauer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They think they can legislate anything they want For Americans at least, that mentality has evolved over time as we further distance ourselves from the Constitution and its Amendments; trying our best to ignore their very clear limits on the capabilities of each branch of government. In today's American society, a diverse (and often mutually disagreeing) set of groups see the limits set in the Constitution as quain…

Sorry, but I think you're being historically obtuse. This isn't anything new at all. The entire core debate of federalism versus anti-federalism (or to put it in perspective of historical figures, the Alexander Hamilton way against the Thomas Jefferson way) has been something going on since before the country was even conceived, and it goes on to this date. Your portrayal of constitutional originalism being some gold…

Disagreement with the Constitution is certainly not new and I am not describing an increase in disagreement with the Constitution. I am describing a diminishing significance of the term "unconstitutional" as a counterargument to agendas that (strictly speaking) are in fact unconstitutional. In the country's earlier history, the constitutionality of laws was considered a more important factor to predicate their existence. If an argument were made that a law would be unconstitutional, that presented at the very least a significant hurdle to clear.

Are you saying you disagree that the Constitution is considered less relevant today than it was in the earlier history of the United States? If so, that's fine; we simply disagree.

Certainly the past were not "the good ol' days," and nothing about what I said is to suggest the past was a better time than the present. Technological progress alone makes today immeasurably more luxurious. Rather, my point was that the Constitution and the limits have been diluted with each circumventing event made for the sake of facile law-making and problem-fixing. And today the Constitution is more often than not seen as quaint.

Maybe you're right; maybe the percentage of Americans who see the Constitution as outdated and irrelevant has remained steady over time. I don't have polling data. But from my personal experience, even in my lifetime, the marginalization of arguments based on the constitutionality of laws appears to have grown. It now seems that bringing up the Constitution as a roadblock to new lawmaking is considered a tired, predictable, and ultimately weak talking point in a debate.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#113

Post by russell_h » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:38 PM UTC

homunculus wrote: post #105

wl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. T…

I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.

I'd guess bolt action rifles are more popular, but both bolt action and semi-automatic rifles are readily available and widely used for hunting.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#114

Post by wfo » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:39 PM UTC

bhauer wrote: post #65

phkahler wrote: post #12

This debate seems like a manifestation of a problem with governments: They think they can legislate anything they want. Need access to some communications - green light for massive data collection. Some of it is encrypted - just mandate a back door. School shooting - new gun laws. Any problem activity - we'll just make it illegal. Something not getting done - we'll just mandate someone take care of it. They really do…

> They think they can legislate anything they want For Americans at least, that mentality has evolved over time as we further distance ourselves from the Constitution and its Amendments; trying our best to ignore their very clear limits on the capabilities of each branch of government. In today's American society, a diverse (and often mutually disagreeing) set of groups see the limits set in the Constitution as quain…

The constitution was written primarily as philosophy, not politics. It has some new principles but ignoring it is nothing new. The founding fathers wrote it and then immediately threw it in the garbage (and not just technical rules, the principles upon which it is based) when the going got tough (Alien and sedition acts for a very explicit example)

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#115

Post by Nimitz14 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:39 PM UTC

homunculus wrote: post #105

wl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. T…

I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.

afaik most hunting rifles are semi automatic (that's what you're describing and how the AR15 works)

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#116

Post by Glyptodon » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:40 PM UTC

homunculus wrote: post #105

wl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. T…

I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.

I can't say "most" but there are plenty of semi-automatic rifles used for hunting, at least in the US.

The legalities of what kind of rifle you're allowed to use to hunt what where and when and the particular ammo and how big of magazine can be used are somewhat arbitrary and vary from state to state and game animal to game animal. I think at least 48 at states allow some form of hunting with semiautomatic rifles.

In some parts of the country "Bubba'd" SKS guns are pretty popular for hunting deer I think. (Google image search "bubba gun sks" for a general idea of what's going on - converting a wood stock and 10-round stripper clip magazine to polymer with detachable box magazines, which is a pretty good illustration of how the same gun can look a lot different.)

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#117

Post by virmundi » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:41 PM UTC

homunculus wrote: post #105

wl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. T…

I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.

I have a semi-auto Browning 12 gauge. Sadly, I've never fired it. Apparently it's really fun.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#118

Post by koenigdavidmj » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #59

wl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather rare. But even before the registry was closed to civilians, registered machineguns were only used in a handful of crimes since they were regulated in 1934. In the US, there is a pattern of politicians pushing for their pet gun control measures after some mass…

Yeah, I wish we would stop pushing for assault weapons bans and instead push for a similar sort of safety and usage training, psychological and temperament screening, waiting period, and background checks that a police officer might go through before they are presented with a gun and a badge (that may even be an opportunity to re-think the sort of training we give our police!). It would be costly, but that sort of li…

> psychological and temperament screening

This is code for "we need a reason to ban anyone we don't like without that pesky requirement of convincing a court".

Example 1 of this is Alabama's concealed handgun license scheme, which up until recently was may-issue (the state is permitted to give a license, but not required). In practice, that meant that if you were white, you always got one. If you were black, not so much.

Or David Cameron's recent gem: 'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.'

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#119

Post by sixbrx » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #70

magicmu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a spectacular quote, and really embodies the impetus of the American people to not only blame excessively when things go wrong, but to place blame in a manner which absolves all parties of any (perceived) responsibility.

Limiting your statement to the American populace is a bit ignorant. This is a universal reaction by people, not just those born west of the Atlantic Ocean.

You're probably right, but the American case may be the only case the author felt qualified to comment on.

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

#120

Post by naveen99 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

They already ban encryption on ham radio... :(

Maybe somebody can start a pay to broadcast service using namecoin atomic name changes https://wiki.namecoin.info/?title=Atomic_Name-Trading 1. Service announces public nmc pay to address. 2. People mail them a message as a name update transaction combined with payment to that address using snailmail. 3. They broadcast if the perceived risk of broadcasting is less than the value of fee provided.

This could be anonymous and encrypted if the source name coins are sufficiently anonymous.