Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by waffle_ss » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 8:58 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #66

JupiterMoon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NOTE I don't want to get into the politics of gun ownership. Just fact seeking. I was under the impression that the AR-15 is very readily available? Do these not count as assault rifles?

An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. T…

> The M16, which the AR-15 is based on

Actually it's the other way 'round - the AR-15 came first; the M16 is based on it. Also, detachable magazines are often cited as another requirement for classifying a rifle as an assault rifle.

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

#182

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:04 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #158

pjc50 wrote: 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?

It's not an entirely serious position.

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

#183

Post by pluma » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

WildUtah wrote: post #81

tremon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a lot of trouble viewing anything involving the NSA as "law enforcement". Like the CIA, aren't they specifically created to subvert the law in other countries and not operate in their own jurisdiction?

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.

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

#184

Post by sanderjd » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

DickingAround wrote: post #167

sanderjd wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

I think the difference is people spend relatively little time on the perpetrator having some propensity to have issues (as will happen to some people when you have 7 billions-strong-bell-curve of them) and a lot of time on what could have triggered/exacerbated their issue (which could be a lot of things that don't cause issues in most people). For example, video games, pot, guns, etc. which don't cause issues in most…

As argued in the article I linked (and elsewhere), the U.S. in particular appears to be a statistical outlier, which suggests that we might be able to identify what is different in our policies, and make some improvements.

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

#185

Post by cortesoft » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #149

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 t…

Your first part is why I always find these talks silly. Encryption (at least the kind they are talking about) is just math - all the laws in the world aren't going to change the math. You can't legislate away the knowledge of that math; even if you force Apple or Google to insert your backdoor into THEIR implementation of the crypto, that doesn't mean that a 'terrorist' couldn't just use their own implementation of the readily available and widely known algorithms. That cat is out of the bag; you can't legislate it back in.

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

#186

Post by a_bonobo » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #143

oconnore wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>or who stole the weapons from someone else,

This rings alarm-bells with me, let's have a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Ame... says (sorted by year)

First one:

>In September 2012, Rodger visited a shooting range to train himself in firing handguns.[12] In November 2012, he purchased his first handgun, a Glock 34 pistol, in Goleta, after doing research on handguns and judging the Glock 34 to be "an efficient and highly accurate weapon", as documented in his manifesto.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Prepa...

Second one:

>The Glock 9mm pistol used in the shooting was legally purchased by Vargas in 2010 from a local gun shop, and he had a concealed carry permit for it.[8][18][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Hialeah_shooting#Prior_to...

Third one:

>On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 pistol at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora. Six days later, on May 28, he bought a Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver.[64]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes#Events_lead...

Fourth one:

> Following an incident later in 2007 involving his stepfather, a restraining order was filed against him, barring him from possessing firearms. The order lasted a year and had expired at the time of the shooting.

(Seems to imply the guns were his? Can't see in article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Hialeah_shooting#Prior_to...

Fifth one:

>Loughner allegedly purchased the 9mm Glock pistol used in the shooting from a Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson on November 30, 2010.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

Sixth one:

>He got out, shot, and wounded a woman on a motorcycle with a Norinco Mak 90 semiautomatic rifle.

(doesn't say who owned it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_IHOP_shooting

Seventh one:

> Items found on Wong's body included a hunting knife, in the waistband of his pants;[13] a bag of ammunition, which was tied around his neck;[27] and two semi-automatic pistols (a .45-caliber Beretta Px4 Storm and a 9mm Beretta 92FS Vertec Inox, matching the serial numbers on his New York State pistol license)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings

So of these 7 rampage shootings, 5 were done by people who used their own gun, one is implied (possibly not?).

Furthermore, some of these had past known mental health issues: Elliot Rodger, Scott Evans Dekraai had a restraining order filed against him, Jared Lee Loughner was told to get his mental health evaluated if he wanted to return to university (later diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic), Eduardo Sencion was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia a few decades before the shooting, James Eagan Holmes was seeing several psychologists of which one tried to warn his campus police, the others have unknown motives.

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

#187

Post by baby » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

cloakandswagger wrote: post #77

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…

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.

> It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion

That doesn't mean you can't change it. You realize your constitution is pretty recent right?

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

#188

Post by baby » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #73

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.

I don't know...if I were Swiss I could probably conclude that mandatory gun ownership is the way to fewer school shootings. But reality is always more complex than that, isn't it?

It's not gonna be simple if you start comparing Swiss citizens with the US citizens.

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

#189

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #148

misnome wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fu…

> The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government.

They limit government by defining, in the fundamental law, rights that are prortected against government encroachment. Those aren't mutually exclusive alternatives, one is the means by which the other is achieved.

> That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things.

The quasi-religious belief that there are rights that exist "in nature" prior to law and which all governments are obliged to observe is a popular one -- and was with the founders -- and part of the basis for the use of the term "inalienable right". However, the exact parameters of such "inalienable" rights are far from uniformly agreed even among those who subscribe to the belief that they exist. You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments; note, for instance, that quite a lot of people from the time of the founding through (and no doubt past) the time when this was, in law, settled at the point of a bayonet by the 13th Amendment, thought that the widely-accepted-as-inalienable right to property included the right to hold human beings -- and particularly for whites to hold blacks -- as personal property.

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

#190

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 10:21 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #189

jakeogh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fu…

> The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. They limit government by defining, in the fundamental law, rights that are prortected against government encroachment. Those aren't mutually exclusive alternatives, one is the means by which the other is achieved. > That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. The quasi-religious belief that there are rights that exist "in…

> You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments

Yes and no. The point of the "inalienable rights" was that they were given to people by God, and therefore nobody - not king or president, not parliament or congress - has the authority to take them away. They may have the power to declare that we don't have them, but they don't have the legitimate authority to do so.

But now we (as a society) no longer believe in God, and no longer believe that we are made in His image. When that changed, "inalienable rights" (in the original meaning) died - except for those who still believe in God as creator of humans.