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

141–150 of 222 posts

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

#141

Post by misnome »

stephengillie wrote: post #23
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…

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…

> Lawmakers (smart ones, anyway) don't break laws; they make what they want to do legal, and then just do it

Actually, it seems more recently the trend is to do it; and then make it legal retroactively.

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

#142

Post by viraptor »

saiya-jin wrote: post #95
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 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?

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

#143

Post by Karunamon »

oconnore wrote: post #59
wl wrote: 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…

The problem I have with the whole background checks philosophy is that it sounds like a good thing, but most of the mass shootings we're all familiar with were committed by people who would have passed the background check anyways, or who stole the weapons from someone else, which means the whole exercise was pointless (i.e. didn't meaningfully increase safety from baseline, i.e. security theater)

"Psychological and temperament screening" is a tremendously subjective thing (psych is a pretty soft science on the best of days), and not something I'm comfortable with hanging a constitutional right off of.

It needs to be strictly objective criterion, along the lines of if X then Y.

Now being able to demonstrate safety, I would be 100% cool with, because then we're licensing people, not weapons, and doesn't carry the possible abuse factor of firearms registries. The FCC example given upthread is a great model. You go to a safety class, demonstrate that you know how to operate a gun safely based on objective criteria, and you get a card or a paper or something that entitles you to buy whatever. You have to re-up it every 10 years or so.

Hell, let the NRA run it and charge a token fee. Would give them an actual meaningful place in the discourse instead of the "government's coming for your guns!" scare tactics that they play every few years.

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

#144

Post by LostInTheWoods2 »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #62
magicmu wrote: 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.

I find this is done universally. Every time some shooting or similar disaster occurs, the actual perpetrator is among the last to take the blame. It's the video games, it's the music, it's the toxic culture of masculinity, it's the pharmaceutical drugs, or it's the Zionist media poisoning our children with Judeo-Bolshevist propaganda. The obsession is with the "one single cause", but more importantly the opportunity…

The truth that truly terrifies people, is that some things happen without a rationale.

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

#145

Post by viraptor »

istvan__ wrote: post #51
idlewords wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.

Any proof? There are several countries in Europe with relaxed gun laws and we don't have too many shootings. While in Germany ("Gun legislation in Germany is considered among the strictest gun control in the world") we have seen some school shootings... Could you back your statement with any data? THe only thing I got proves otherwise: http://41.media.tumblr.com/4b2648afd425728c741b77cef3ed793e/...

This graph says pretty much: if you need a gun in a state with lowest ownership you only need to visit around 10 houses to find one. That's basically "if you want one, you know where to get one". I wouldn't expect the correlation to be very high here.

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

#146

Post by arnarbi »

idlewords wrote: post #33
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…

A gun ban is a reasonable and effective way of reducing the number of school shootings, as any European on here will confirm. Not sure why you brought guns into this argument other than it being a pet issue.

European here, and I hate guns. But I would not confirm that statement without conclusive evidence.

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

#147

Post by sanderjd »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #62
magicmu wrote: 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.

I find this is done universally. Every time some shooting or similar disaster occurs, the actual perpetrator is among the last to take the blame. It's the video games, it's the music, it's the toxic culture of masculinity, it's the pharmaceutical drugs, or it's the Zionist media poisoning our children with Judeo-Bolshevist propaganda. The obsession is with the "one single cause", but more importantly the opportunity…

None of this rings true to me. I've never heard or read anything like "it wasn't the perpetrator's fault, it was XYZ", but rather "it was the perpetrator's fault, and I wonder if XYZ contributes to the prevalence of such perpetrators". In the US at least, there certainly appears to be something going on outside of random happenstance[0], so it makes sense to think and talk about what that may be. Certainly many people use such things to rail against their pet cause, but far more people are just trying to figure out where we're going wrong.

[0]: http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2015/07/De-Obfuscating-th...

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

#148

Post by jakeogh »

misnome wrote: post #140
cloakandswagger wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you mean an "Amendment" e.g. a "Change" to your countries founding document, subject to interpretation that pretty much throws out the first half. If you are going by the founding document, then you wouldn't have the rights anyway (and a hell of a lot less in general) And if amendments are permanent, well, then prohibition should still be in force.

The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. Of course that doesnt stop power from trying.

Preamble to the (confusingly named) Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

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

#149

Post by graycat »

They can "oppose" all they want.

That's why we have PGP, in open source.

And that's why in the US we have:

"Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I know; I know: Various people working for the people are all wound up about wanting to know and wanting to be sure, wanting to be sure they know just what is in all those e-mail messages. Their thinking might go:

"Those messages, they are sending lots of messages, are they planning something? Are those people up to something? Are we at threat? We want to know. Why do they encrypt their e-mail messages if they have nothing to hide?

"If they have something to hide, then definitely for the good of everyone we should know about it and they shouldn't use encryption. Else they might be planning something. If they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't mind our knowing and shouldn't use encryption.

"Yes, definitely we should have full access to all e-mail and other communications, computer hard disks, private conversations, private thoughts, etc."

That's what some people working for the people think.

Sorry, guys, I'm one of the people you are working for, and you will just have to do your job without violating the Constitution. It's an old story, as is encryption, and e-mail, the Internet do not fundamentally change the situation.

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

#150

Post by surge »

oconnore wrote: post #59
wl wrote: 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…

"psychological and temperament screening"

They tried that in a few places, it usually just translated to "black people can't own guns" or discrimination based on the screener's impression of that person. "Screening for temperament" is akin to literacy or other such tests before voting.

Anyone can lie/spin a form test, similar to the customs form you get when you fly into the country, everything else is subjective and grounds for a discrimination law suit.

Post reply on HN