Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 222 posts

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

#121

Post by vezzy-fnord »

bhauer wrote: post #112
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 existe…

Are you saying you disagree that the Constitution is considered less relevant today than it was in the earlier history of the United States?

Yes.

If anything, our First Amendment rights are now more robust than they were in the past. We have almost nothing like a modern-day equivalent to Anthony Comstock. The amount of obscenities you can get away with these days is higher thanks to people like Al Goldstein, Lenny Bruce and Larry Flynt setting historical free speech precedents. Labor movement violence is a thing of the past. The sexual revolution means pornography went from obscene to "meh, whatever". Film censorship no longer happens as much as it did in the period before the 1960s. The export restrictions on cryptography have been heavily softened to the point of being almost practically irrelevant. Left-wing politics, though hardly major, are no longer subject to any real suppression beyond punditry's ignorance.

As for the other amendments you listed, I presume they're in reference to mass surveillance. In which case, civil asset forfeiture dates back to maritime law, NSA has been documented to intercept ingoing telegraphs as far back as 1945, Operation Mockingbird had the CIA meddle with U.S. media, FBI has had COINTELPRO, DCSNet and other operations, so on and so forth. Nothing here is new.

You're viewing the past through exceptionally rose-tinted glasses, honestly.

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

#124

Post by pnathan »

magicmu wrote: post #38
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just with governments, but people's whims in general. To quote G.K. Chesterton [1]: And then, last but the reverse of least, there plunged in all the people who think they can solve a problem they cannot understand by abolishing everything that has contributed to it. We all know these people. If a barber has cut his customer's throat because the girl has changed her partner for a dance or donkey ride on Hampstead…

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.

Chesterton is spectacularly quotable - but I am afraid he was English. I would suggest at a minimum, it reflects the Anglo-Saxon legal mindset, and at a maximum, it reflects the human legal mindset.

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

#125

Post by wl »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
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 think this comes down to the difference between banning things that nobody really wants (lead in paint) versus things that people really want (drugs, alcohol). In America, guns are in the second category. Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Edit: given how this discussion is going, I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amen…

The first amendment is actually far more strongly defended than the second. It's settled law at this point that exceptions to the first amendment must pass strict scrutiny, which means that there must be a compelling government interest in play, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to protect just that interest, and the restriction must be the least restrictive way possible to protect that interest. In practice, few laws pass strict scrutiny. In contrast, courts are still hashing out which level of scrutiny must be used when deciding second amendment cases.

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

#126

Post by bencollier49 »

sixbrx wrote: post #119
stevehawk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

G.K. Chesterton was British.

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

#127

Post by johanneskanybal »

Can we stop the sharing of pay-walled content please, just pick another source?

ot: What do they (cameron and c/o) think the best case scenario is for this folly? Disrupt a few mainstream services while pissing everyone off in the process whilst the real criminals move on to slightly more obscure services?

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

#128

Post by bhauer »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #121
bhauer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 existe…

Are you saying you disagree that the Constitution is considered less relevant today than it was in the earlier history of the United States? Yes. If anything, our First Amendment rights are now more robust than they were in the past. We have almost nothing like a modern-day equivalent to Anthony Comstock. The amount of obscenities you can get away with these days is higher thanks to people like Al Goldstein, Lenny Br…

Very well. I tentatively stand corrected on the historical significance of unconstitutionality as an effective means to stop unconstitutional government behavior.

Nevertheless, and perhaps in part because the Constitution has in fact been routinely steamrolled in the past, it seems that bringing it up as a counterargument to any law today is just short of pointless.

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

#129

Post by steve_b »

microcolonel wrote: post #58
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…

First of all, assault rifles are not on the open market in the U.S. and haven't been for quite some time. U.S. armed violence has a lot more to it than the availability of weapons; statistics are easy to misinterpret as well, since they're really just the proportion of violent crimes that are committed with one particular tool. Here in Canada, we have higher instance of violence with knives, but unsurprisingly almost…

I'm just going to compare murder rates between Canada and US. Murder is harder to fudge. Using data from different years. Maybe that invalidates the conclusion, but I'm guessing it holds in general.

> Here in Canada, we have higher instance of violence with knives, but unsurprisingly almost the same proportion of violence with guns, despite fairly hefty controls.

Firearm homicide in the US per 100k: 3.55 [1] Firearm homicide in Canada per 100k: 0.51 [1] Homicide rate in the US per 100k: 4.7 [2] Homicide rate in Canada per 100k: 1.6 [2]

Proportion of homicides from firearms in the US: 3.55/4.7 = 76% Proportion of homicides from firearms in Canada: 0.51/1.6 = 32%

Not sure what to make of the numbers. But it doesn't seem like Canada has "the same proportion of violence with guns".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

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

#130

Post by stephengillie »

nitrogen wrote: post #106
stephengillie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawmakers (smart ones, anyway) don't break laws; they make what they want to do legal, and then just do it. Give a person a hammer, and everything's a nail; give a person a lawmaking ability and suddenly everything's illegal. Even when inaction is the wisest course, it looks too much like indecisiveness to be politically feasible. One of the problems is that we can't figure out a better system of using humans to gove…

One of the problems is that we can't figure out a better system of using humans to govern humans. There are a lot of things we can improve, though. First past the post voting systems mathematically guarantee polarized two-party systems aligned on emotionally charged but relatively inconsequential issues. So we should switch to approval voting. Having the same person purport to represent our interests in everything fr…

It's like you're describing the separation of governance by domain. For instance, instead of having a mayor for a city, we'd have a mayor of telecommunications or technology, along with a mayor of transportation, a mayor of housing and civil engineering, and a mayor of commerce.

These problems pop up with my example:

  * You still need someone to centralize the execution; people are going to want a hierarchy and to have one person at the top.
  * Having 5 mayors means paying 5 times as many people (but they'll be able to work much more in depth in their subject area)
If you reduce those mayors down to city council members, and have another mayor, it resembles the system in place in many layers of bureaucracy.
Post reply on HN