111–120 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they could be un-embedded and read out the hard way. (Might still be encrypted after that, but the data is going to be made accessible one way or another unless the device self destructs and you won't be storing the key in there but in your wetware.)
Compulsive surgery before a conviction? Even worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not fantasy. Fantasy is a world where you can tell the police "I know how to open that thing that you have a lawful order to investigate, and you don't, so any crime of which I'm suspected is now uninvestigatable, nanny nanny boo boo". The analog with other difficult locks is just fine; the fact that these locks are so good that they are unbreakable doesn't really change anything about the accused's obligation t…
Except it seems there is good case law to show that in fact suspected cannot be forced to open a combination lock, as it falls under fifth amendment protection. They can, however, be compelled to provide a key if it is a key-based lock. This applies similarly to biometric-based locks. It's hard to believe that an encryption key is any different than a combination lock in this "encryption is like a safe" metaphor. Rel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not fantasy. Fantasy is a world where you can tell the police "I know how to open that thing that you have a lawful order to investigate, and you don't, so any crime of which I'm suspected is now uninvestigatable, nanny nanny boo boo". The analog with other difficult locks is just fine; the fact that these locks are so good that they are unbreakable doesn't really change anything about the accused's obligation t…
Except it seems there is good case law to show that in fact suspected cannot be forced to open a combination lock, as it falls under fifth amendment protection. They can, however, be compelled to provide a key if it is a key-based lock. This applies similarly to biometric-based locks. It's hard to believe that an encryption key is any different than a combination lock in this "encryption is like a safe" metaphor. Rel…
There's a public good from the right to avoid self incrimination, it's less clear what the public good of protecting people's right to keep content hidden in the face of a court order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The examples you chose are interesting, not only because they reveal an obvious bias. I think the correct interpretation of the various amendments is to view them in conjunction with the ninth. That is, the default should be to argue in good faith about what rights the amendment is attempting to preserve, not nit-picking them to find technicalities that the state can use to limit or restrict someone's rights. Your hi…
> it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution. The second amendment in full is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated mi…
It really doesn't matter, because as Heller held, the first part of that sentence is the prefatory clause which doesn't limit or expand the scope of the actual, operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As expected on HN I am not surprised to see people defending one's right to privacy and encryption. However, what's the solution then ? If all the "bad guys" who distribute illegal material do so encrypted volumes and refuse to give up the decryption key then what do we do ? Why do we care for people distributing "illegal material" in the first place? And how come this "illegal material" doesn't ever get decrypted?…
> Why do we care for people distributing "illegal material" in the first place? Is "distributing child pornography should not be a crime" really the hill you want to die on?
One day, some one is going to pass a law or do something that you don't like because the government will have unprecedented access and control of information flow. They can stop you seeing or even sharing. And it may be happening already but nobody knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's the "abolish BS laws" hill. How about creating child pornography being a crime? That's what's actually hurtful.
Pretty sure that already is a crime. But I gather there's a large quantity of the stuff that exists already. Your proposal ignores it - legalizes its distribution, in fact. Why?
Not only would this expand the scope of "criminal" to include people who have not committed such crimes (and may never do so), but I think it's a futile and petulant exercise, albeit one with benefit to intrusive law enforcement (and I'm echoing feedback provided elsewhere in this thread).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure that already is a crime. But I gather there's a large quantity of the stuff that exists already. Your proposal ignores it - legalizes its distribution, in fact. Why?
Actions such as crimes are traditionally illegal. Information about actions such as crime is traditionally legal. Should we ban all recordings of any crime under moralist or flimsy arguments such as that they encourage others to commit the crimes recorded? Not only would this expand the scope of "criminal" to include people who have not committed such crimes (and may never do so), but I think it's a futile and petula…
In any case, these are all currently crimes in their own right, so they fall under your first category, rather than your second, so I'm not quite clear what sort of point you're making here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First of all no one has any duty to provide the police with evidence as a 5th amendment protection. Apparently all these amendments are open to all kinds of BS interpretation by courts, with loopholes like "you don't really expect privacy when you send snail mail", "some random gun freak is the same as a well armed militia", "corporations are people" and other such shenanigans.
The examples you chose are interesting, not only because they reveal an obvious bias. I think the correct interpretation of the various amendments is to view them in conjunction with the ninth. That is, the default should be to argue in good faith about what rights the amendment is attempting to preserve, not nit-picking them to find technicalities that the state can use to limit or restrict someone's rights. Your hi…
If it is possible to determine that you have encrypted data, and it is possible to verify the accuracy of your testimony, there should be no concern about compelling false testimony.
Which is different from compelling testimony that cannot be verified, at least in the sense that you know that only the people being held in contempt could possibly be innocent.
Maybe the tradeoffs that should.be made in this case are different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The examples you chose are interesting, not only because they reveal an obvious bias. I think the correct interpretation of the various amendments is to view them in conjunction with the ninth. That is, the default should be to argue in good faith about what rights the amendment is attempting to preserve, not nit-picking them to find technicalities that the state can use to limit or restrict someone's rights. Your hi…
> it's clear from reading other writings by the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow an individual to own firearms. This is irrelevant, it matters what made it into the contract, i.e. Constitution. The second amendment in full is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated mi…
This was a correct and useful stance - and a fruitful ground for debate - prior to 2010.
However, what matters now is District of Columbia v. Heller[1] and McDonald v. City of Chicago[2] which "held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states".[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago