Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

171–180 of 222 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Murder is harder to fudge. Actually it is quite easy. For evidence, see >Firearm homicide in the US per 100k >Proportion of homicides from firearms That you can so easily switch between murder and homicide makes the numbers really easy to fudge to most people who don't consider the differences between the two.

I should have just wrote "homicide" instead of "murder". The two sources I gave separate suicides from homicides.

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

#172

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…

It doesn't matter whether you "buy" the arguments about why gun ownership is necessary. It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion.

Is it?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-seco...

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

#173
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Left-wing politics, though hardly major, are no longer subject to any real suppression beyond punditry's ignorance. This is not really true. Left-wing political groups are still actively suppressed by police organizations on a regular basis, as well as Islamic groups (religious and secular), LGBT rights groups, and generally anyone involved in protesting. Police see protest groups as antagonists and act to disrupt t…

It's a far cry from The Red Scare, though, which was his point.

In what sense is it a far cry from the Red Scare? Which Red Scare, for starters? There have been two purges of leftists from American civil society in the 20th century, and both of them attempted (from the look of the outcomes) to marginalize leftist politics as far away from the mainstream as possible, to wreck the lives of anyone involved in leftist politics, and to discourage people from those politics due to the fear of the Inquisition turning its eye on them.

Of these goals, the first is no longer relevant (the media keeps leftists and similar out of politics far more effectively than periodically purging the State Department of leftist party members ever did). The second is very real and continues to be accomplished by various police agencies. Because of modern "terrorism" laws, various methods of protest are criminalized as terrorism (mostly pertaining to protests that disrupt businesses, like picket lines or sit-ins), and so protest groups can find themselves targeted by fusion centers, special anti-protest task forces, and federal policing agencies (like the DHS).

Finally, the last goal continues to be enshrined today. Free speech zones and militarized police presence at protests makes protesting a much less empowering act than it was in the 60s and 70s -- imagine if Norman Morrison had burned himself in a free speech pen miles from the Pentagon! Going to a protest now entails locking oneself in a cage and being stared down by beefy, roided-up cops that are actively trying to attack protesters and see protesters as an enemy force. Use of grand jury investigations, fusion centers, task forces, entrapment, and finally, the persistence of social media, makes it hard to join nonviolent groups without the fear of "something" coming up that could ruin you for life. The programming in American educational systems about "keeping Facebook friendly for colleges and employers" supports this self-censorship.

If you look into what is actually going on, possibly by researching some of the topics I mentioned in my last comment, you'll find that modern suppression of non-mainstream politics is indeed comparable to the red scare. The fact that it no longer occurs to such fanfare indicates that such behavior has been normalized on the part of the state.

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

#174
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.

Yeah, that's totally true. As another commenter pointed out, it's more-so the case that I only feel qualified to comment on American mentality (and even then, I don't feel especially qualified). This is particularly problematic here since the article pertains to both U.S. and British governments, and the quote itself was from a British author (as another commenter thoughtfully pointed out). I don't rescind my statement, but I definitely acknowledge the ignorance/cultural arrogance that comes with a comment that invokes the context of a single country -- in a lot of ways, it's this very ignorance that I attempt to combat in forums like this, by reading comments like yours :)

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

#175
post #91
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Universal background check" is code for registration: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC Hand your rifle to a friend in Washington state? That's a (unconstitutional) felony.

This is how it is in Canada, and it sucks. Some rifles are classified as unrestricted don't have to be registered, while other rifles which accept the exact same rounds and magazines are classified restricted. Licenses must be obtained to even move them, let alone lend, give, or sell to someone else. At least advances in manufacturing technology will make this nonsense impractical eventually.

What is better than partially restricted arms trade and movement?

Being able to create any arm, any where, at any time!

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

#176
post #65

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…

I believe the Constitution was a work of genius, but I also believe it was conceived at a scale we've long since surpassed, and it's overdue for a massive refactoring. If nothing else, our current technological base enables a tremendously larger pool of representatives, for instance.

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

#177

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…

This paragraph is a manifestation of a problem with how people think about governments: Governments are not conscious or even sentient. There are no physical entities, 'governments', no matter how many times you refer to it in your language. There are interpretable codes, people who execute the codes, and people who assign the codes.

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

#178
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amendment protection I never understood that position. Based on the argument that encryption is a mechanism for speech, why not classify it as speech?

Encryption is like armor for information. Armor is a weapon.

Don't ask.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> including scissors, saw, pipe, baseball, knife or just good old pure hands All the things you listed require close distance, physical contact, possibility of attacker responding, and almost literally: blood on your hands. Any range weapon provides distance, more "comfort", and a higher degree of safety for the attacker. If we can reduce that disconnect from what people are doing, then why not?

Pssh. Next you'll say drone strikes are somehow morally problematic because you can end lives by clicking a button to make dots go away.

/s

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

#180
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…

>> Oddly, the NRA seems more even more opposed to licensing than they are on restricting magazine capacity.

That's probably because licensing creates a list of who has them. They're afraid such a list will make it easy to take them away at a later date.

BTW, I kind of regret bringing up such a hot topic as an example rather than thinking harder for examples. Now I recall the attempt by media companies to get DRM into every A2D converter to plug the "analog hole" - that's technically impossible and it never went anywhere, but it's another example of the thinking.

Post reply on HN