131–140 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very good point. As someone who has been anti-gun and pro-encryption, I'm now wondering how I reconcile these two stances that are at conflict with each other.
Guns are not, fundamentally, a tool for ensuring one's privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original intent of the right to bear arms was to enable protection against an intrusive government. It's very similar to crypto in that sense.
and as the original intent went, it made sense. but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government, but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin
The fact that the government outscaled civilians RE: military power doesn't make it a useless law. Think abusive law enforcement at the local/state level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government At an individual level it doesn't. At a population level there is an argument that it makes a guerrilla civil war potentially winnable by the rebels, which has a deterrent effect on extreme totalitarianism.
Theoretically it would if the American populous, heavily armed as we are, had any chance whatsoever against the military. We don't, so the point is moot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and as the original intent went, it made sense. but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government, but it does raise the risk of gun related death to those around you by a significant margin
>but owning a gun doesn't really protect one from a modern intrusive government The fact that the government outscaled civilians RE: military power doesn't make it a useless law. Think abusive law enforcement at the local/state level.
People are shot and killed by law enforcement. Sometimes they're shot and killed very quickly, within 30 seconds of an officer arriving on scene.
People who are thought to be armed are often shot and killed by US police. Notice the "thought" there, many people are shot even though they don't have a weapon because law enforcement thinks the person has a gun.
Do you have any examples where an interaction between a citizen and a cop is made better by the presence of a gun on the citizen?
(I guess the strongest challenge to my argument is the presence of MalcolmX)
Please stop calling it crypto wars..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?
This is a very good point. As someone who has been anti-gun and pro-encryption, I'm now wondering how I reconcile these two stances that are at conflict with each other.
They are just tools. They can be used or abused.
You are not as rational as you think you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?
I have never understood why the USA anti-gun lobby doesn't go after ammunition rather than guns. Just ban ammunition and a gun just becomes a not so dangerous club.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone have any insights into why the commonly used guns argument is not good enough for encryption? If we ban guns(encryption), only the criminals will have it. The only thing I can think of is that the majority of people who advocate for encryption are anti-gun, and don't want to give strength to that argument?
The recent issues over encryption has actually changed my thinking on guns. I'm not 'pro gun', don't own guns, and want nothing to do with them personally. But as I think about my stance on the legality of encryption it sounds pretty similar to the argument for guns. Still don't want one, but it's harder for me to be dismissive of a point when I turn around and use the same point for another issue.
The right to keep and bear arms has more bearing on access to encryption than any other recognized right.