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

#61

Post by Retra » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

jebblue wrote: post #11

gnu8 wrote: post #2

The headline belies the utter ridiculousness of the idea. Why would the United States and United Kingdom be singled out to have backdoor access to all communications? To hang onto the tattered remnants of their empires while keeping their own people in line despite their declining political legitimacy.

The united States isn't an empire, that's what it was formed to get away from. It's a collection of people, living in different communities called states that strive to stay united to form a more perfect union. It isn't a perfect experiment because people are not perfect but it's the best effort history has seen so far.

That's right, the US was born with those states. They weren't aggressively annexed as a simple matter of controlling foreign territory or anything.

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

#62

Post by vezzy-fnord » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

magicmu wrote: post #38

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just with governments, but people's whims in general. To quote G.K. Chesterton [1]: And then, last but the reverse of least, there plunged in all the people who think they can solve a problem they cannot understand by abolishing everything that has contributed to it. We all know these people. If a barber has cut his customer's throat because the girl has changed her partner for a dance or donkey ride on Hampstead…

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 for every demagogue to revel in vilifying their preferred scapegoats. Nothing gets fixed, and people wonder why.

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

#63

Post by Crito » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #57

Crito wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A gun ban would not work in America, which is why he brought it up. The American public is already armed, really likes being armed, for the most part is not registered as being armed, actually truly believes that being disarmed is a prelude to genocide, and openly admit that they would use their arms against anyone who tried to take them. Remember what happened when the Federal government tried to get some farmer to…

People [from] several states away showed up with rifles What jail sentences for terrorism offences did they recieve? Or were they shot by police? Or were they white people? (In other countries, you can't just show up to political protests with weapons!)

> "What jail sentences for terrorism offences did they recieve? Or were they shot by police?"

I think you know the answer to that. The answer is kind of my point, isn't it?

These people are dangerous to push around because they have guns. They realize this. They are not going to relinquish that leverage without a fight.

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

#64

Post by d_theorist » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:31 PM UTC

Would it have killed them to link to the paper?

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

#65

Post by bhauer » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:33 PM UTC

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…

> They think they can legislate anything they want

For Americans at least, that mentality has evolved over time as we further distance ourselves from the Constitution and its Amendments; trying our best to ignore their very clear limits on the capabilities of each branch of government. In today's American society, a diverse (and often mutually disagreeing) set of groups see the limits set in the Constitution as quaint and outdated, too inflexible for the modern world. Some see the Fourth Amendment as unreasonably limiting the effectiveness of national security and law enforcement. Some see the Second Amendment as a relic of a more violent world. Some see the First Amendment as intolerant of intolerance. Some see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as needlessly frustrating the federal government's ability to quickly "fix" problems.

Today, I find the Constitution—and more importantly, those who bring it up in polite political conversation—to as often as not be marginalized as "extreme" or, worse, comedic. There is a rough equivalence of "Constitution" with "Murica" (or similar slang insults depending on the point of view of the person who sees the Constitution as an irksome trump-card used to roadblock their agenda).

As someone who believes the Constitution was a work of genius that facilitated this country's ascent, I also feel that for all our modern failings, the Constitution is one of the remaining bulwarks helping keep us afloat. I am sad when I see it attacked so successfully and relentlessly by myriad disagreeing groups. Those who seek facile, overreaching, and quick government solutions to complex problems routinely want to ignore the limitations set by the Constitution, not realizing that deliberation and careful thought were and should remain a cornerstone of our governmental model.

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

#66

Post by wl » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:34 PM UTC

JupiterMoon wrote: post #55

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…

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. The rest is cosmetic.

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

#67

Post by magicmu » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:37 PM UTC

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…

That's an interesting take... It's like the perfect storm of our collective tendency to shirk responsibility, our tendency to generalize in search of a single unifying class, AND the tendency for powerful bodies (governments, corporations, or individuals) to re-contextualize any issue in a manner that validates their operations.

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

#68

Post by jakeogh » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:38 PM UTC

wl wrote: post #43

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…

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…

"Universal background check" is code for registration: http://cqrcengage.com/azcdl/UBC

Hand your rifle to a friend in Washington state? That's a (unconstitutional) felony.

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

#69

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:39 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #35

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 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…

> Politicians think encryption is in the first category.

Not necessarily; I don't think they're quite stupid enough to think that encryption is not needed. (Perhaps once upon a time that was the case, when encryption was a munition regulated by ITAR.)

Rather, politicians are under the impression that it is, or should be, possible to have encryption that protects against anyone except their own government, that that's something they should get to ask for in the first place, and that that's just as good as un-broken encryption. None of those things are true, but good luck telling a politician that something necessarily needs to be beyond their control in order to function correctly.

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

#70

Post by stevehawk » Tue, Jul 07, 2015, 3:42 PM UTC

magicmu wrote: post #38

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just with governments, but people's whims in general. To quote G.K. Chesterton [1]: And then, last but the reverse of least, there plunged in all the people who think they can solve a problem they cannot understand by abolishing everything that has contributed to it. We all know these people. If a barber has cut his customer's throat because the girl has changed her partner for a dance or donkey ride on Hampstead…

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.

Limiting your statement to the American populace is a bit ignorant. This is a universal reaction by people, not just those born west of the Atlantic Ocean.