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

211–220 of 222 posts

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

#211

Post by mike_hearn »

marcosdumay wrote: post #161
KnightHawk3 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, removi…

I'm a Brazilian, and I completely supported the creation of the gun control laws we currently have. That said, I think our data is clear enough. As soon as we took the guns out of the streets, violence started to increase in a much bigger rate, and we are now almost in a civil war situation. Looks like the US stereotypical idea of a good men with a gun being the best deterrence to a bad men with a gun bears some trut…

The UK and Australia had the opposite experiences. But they are islands and already had fairly strict gun control. May I suggest that perhaps Brazil's efforts to systematically eliminate guns may have been less successful than anticipated.

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

#212

Post by mike_hearn »

pluma wrote: post #183
WildUtah wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no high tech terror for the NSA to fight. So-called intelligence about what Angela Merkel is thinking is of no diplomatic or economic use. The NSA has almost no purpose in practical government. But the NSA does do a lot and has a mission. It's the same mission US law enforcement always invents for itself. The NSA provides lots of leads to cops to arrest innocent drug dealers. Aside from parallel construction,…

The NSA is also heavily engaged in industrial espionage. What Angela Merkel has to say may be irrelevant, but having insights into trade deals before they are signed certainly isn't.

Only if you want to try and unfairly tip the balance towards yourselves by outmanouvering your opponents, in which case the unfairness of the resulting trade deals will be obvious to all who read them. Attempting to fuck with an economy the size of Europe's by spying in trade negotiations only leads to problems in the long run.

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

#213

Post by happyscrappy »

Sideloader wrote: post #206
happyscrappy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you think that China is ascendant, but the fact remains that the West is closely aligned and utterly dominant.

Yes, the West is still dominant but geopolitical and economic power is shifting South and East and Western influence and power is waning. China and the U.S. both know that at the moment each nation is dependent on the other and the collapse of one would have serious repercussions for the global economy. Hence we get scenarios where China is claiming islands a thousand miles off its coast as domestic territory and whi…

> But it is clear that the West is no longer *utterly dominant

Economically, militarily and culturally they are, what metric are you using?

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

#214

Post by TheGrimDerp1 »

de_Selby wrote: post #27
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…

> 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…

disarming a population is generally the first step towards oppression of freedoms and loss of rights recognition.

'Sides, everybody's far more polite when everyone's packin heat.

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

#215

Post by TheGrimDerp1 »

Sideloader wrote: post #201
ryanmarsh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once read that the largest standing army on the planet is in the U.S. on the opening day of deer season. Not sure if that's factually accurate but it does sound formidable. Consequently the best firearm a guerrilla fighter can own is a high powered hunting rifle with a good scope. Also, the average hunting rifle sold in the U.S. is better than the sniper rifles we recovered in Iraq. Nothing is more demoralizing to…

Are all those rifle owners regular active hunters? How many of the hunters possess military caliber marksmanship? Stalking a deer through a forest and sniping members of an invading enemy both involve shooting rifles at moving targets. Being holed up in a sniper's nest during a shooting war and taking out human targets that are aware of your presence and either shooting back directly or trying to relay your position…

| Being holed up in a sniper's nest during a shooting war and taking out human targets that are aware of your presence and either shooting back directly or trying to relay your position to better placed or equipped comrades and all the while moving fast and erratically"

That's not deer hunting, that's duck hunting.

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

#216

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jakeogh wrote: post #200
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why does being born give you the natural right to speak, to defend yourself, and to live privately as you choose? Looking back at the last few thousand years of human history, I see no basis for saying that those are inherent human rights that are yours simply because you were born. A deist would say that humans inherently have those rights (from God), but that human governments and societies have illegitimately…

Because you are a human being. Why else? Do you think some people are born as subjects?

> Because you are a human being.

I gather that you find that argument convincing, but I suspect it's because you already accept the conclusion. To someone who does not already accept your conclusion, your argument is not likely to be very convincing.

> Do you think some people are born as subjects?

Yes, they are. Look at history; even look around today. It's not right, it's not moral, but it clearly is true that it happens.

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

#217

Post by jakeogh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #216
jakeogh wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you are a human being. Why else? Do you think some people are born as subjects?

> Because you are a human being. I gather that you find that argument convincing, but I suspect it's because you already accept the conclusion. To someone who does not already accept your conclusion, your argument is not likely to be very convincing. > Do you think some people are born as subjects? Yes, they are. Look at history; even look around today. It's not right, it's not moral, but it clearly is true that it h…

You appear to be confusing having ones natural rights violated with not having them. As if the subject has somehow lost the right to rebel because they are oppressed. Given your initial question of "why does being born give you the natural right" it's hard to understand how on one hand you agree that being a subject is (obviously) not moral but at the same time don't accept the reason that all people have natural rights because humans should have the same natural rights (because as you noted, anything less is not moral). Pointing out that some are oppressed in practice misses the point.

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

#218

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jakeogh wrote: post #217
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because you are a human being. I gather that you find that argument convincing, but I suspect it's because you already accept the conclusion. To someone who does not already accept your conclusion, your argument is not likely to be very convincing. > Do you think some people are born as subjects? Yes, they are. Look at history; even look around today. It's not right, it's not moral, but it clearly is true that it h…

You appear to be confusing having ones natural rights violated with not having them. As if the subject has somehow lost the right to rebel because they are oppressed. Given your initial question of "why does being born give you the natural right" it's hard to understand how on one hand you agree that being a subject is (obviously) not moral but at the same time don't accept the reason that all people have natural rig…

I think I'm confusing you, but I don't think I'm confused.

I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights. However, I claim that your position does not give you an adequate basis for believing that. And your position certainly does not give you an adequate basis for persuading anyone who does not already accept it.

Perhaps I expressed this badly in my previous post, but that's what I'm trying to say.

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

#219

Post by jakeogh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #218
jakeogh wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be confusing having ones natural rights violated with not having them. As if the subject has somehow lost the right to rebel because they are oppressed. Given your initial question of "why does being born give you the natural right" it's hard to understand how on one hand you agree that being a subject is (obviously) not moral but at the same time don't accept the reason that all people have natural rig…

I think I'm confusing you, but I don't think I'm confused. I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights. However, I claim that your position does not give you an adequate basis for believing that. And your position certainly does not give you an adequate basis for persuading anyone who does not already accept it. Perhaps I expressed this badly in my previous post, but that's what I'm trying to say.

"I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights."

Great. So what's your reason?

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

#220

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jakeogh wrote: post #219
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'm confusing you, but I don't think I'm confused. I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights. However, I claim that your position does not give you an adequate basis for believing that. And your position certainly does not give you an adequate basis for persuading anyone who does not already accept it. Perhaps I expressed this badly in my previous post, but that's what I'm trying to say.

"I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights." Great. So what's your reason?

I'm back with the signers of the Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator". And that's why their inalienable - because nobody has the legitimate authority to supercede His giving of these rights.
Post reply on HN