Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

dustinkirkland.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#71

Post by chernevik »

tptacek wrote: post #69
chernevik wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sense of Congress resolutions don't create law. They're literally just statements of opinion. So the idea that this amendment would have "outlawed SSH" is directly mistaken." This is not correct, or if correct, is so in a manner meaningless for any layman. "Sense of the Senate" language is often important in judicial and / or executive interpretation. It may not be "law" but can often matter a great deal in the impl…

You don't have to read tea leaves to figure out what Biden actually believed. His name is on CALEA, which passed less than a year later. CALEA explicitly does not criminalize encryption.

So my comment is right, and a crucial statement of your argument is wrong, but we can ignore all that because if look at some other piece of legislation we'll see the real Joe Biden.

I spent 8 years in Washington trying to make public policy that actually made sense. I discovered that this was not possible, in part because the idiocy of policy that does _not_ make sense is masked by rhetorical tricks and argumentation such as we're seeing here. I've seen it called "squid ink", the idea is to defuse a true statement by making assessment of that truth so complicated that most readers won't bother.

90% of this board can distinguish technical ability in about five minutes. Sadly they haven't this same facility with policy discussion.

And with that, I'm done.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#72

Post by tptacek »

chernevik wrote: post #71
tptacek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to read tea leaves to figure out what Biden actually believed. His name is on CALEA, which passed less than a year later. CALEA explicitly does not criminalize encryption.

So my comment is right, and a crucial statement of your argument is wrong, but we can ignore all that because if look at some other piece of legislation we'll see the real Joe Biden. I spent 8 years in Washington trying to make public policy that actually made sense. I discovered that this was not possible, in part because the idiocy of policy that does _not_ make sense is masked by rhetorical tricks and argumentatio…

What part of your comment is right? That sense of the Senate resolutions make law? No, they don't. That sense of the Senate resolutions can matter in later court cases? Maybe, but I'm guessing a failed resolution on a failed bill matters a lot less in court than the successfully passed bill by the same author that became public law less than a year later that says the opposite.

Beyond that, it's hard to even imagine what you think I'm trying to create a smokescreen for. Cryptography was never banned. Every restriction on cryptography that existed in 1993 has been substantially relaxed. As a professional software security person, my career would be hamstrung by the ban you seem to perceive me as advocating for. Maybe you just think I really, really like Joe Biden?

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#73

Post by chernevik »

tptacek wrote: post #72
chernevik wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So my comment is right, and a crucial statement of your argument is wrong, but we can ignore all that because if look at some other piece of legislation we'll see the real Joe Biden. I spent 8 years in Washington trying to make public policy that actually made sense. I discovered that this was not possible, in part because the idiocy of policy that does _not_ make sense is masked by rhetorical tricks and argumentatio…

What part of your comment is right? That sense of the Senate resolutions make law? No, they don't. That sense of the Senate resolutions can matter in later court cases? Maybe, but I'm guessing a failed resolution on a failed bill matters a lot less in court than the successfully passed bill by the same author that became public law less than a year later that says the opposite . Beyond that, it's hard to even imagine…

I know very little about you. I've been talking about the signature shape of your arguments.

And I don't know anything of your motivations. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? If so you'll understand that it is possible, indeed sometimes common, for people to take rhetorical stances without actually understanding the position they are taking, out of a reflexive support for their party / faction / coalition of preference. And that those preferences can shape arguments simply to political purposes without actually considering the substance of the question at hand. Indeed people can find themselves in this position without even really realizing it.

Which is why Orwell thought clear language and proper argument so important that he dedicated his life to demonstrating their necessity. Bad arguments an important signal of the possibility of a person so committed to some political purpose in a manner indifferent to the means of achieving that purpose. You could be a political zombie without ever knowing it.

My comment was _right_. "Sense of the Senate" language can, for a layman's usage, constitute law. Your insistence on a point that is wrong, while at the same time eliding that error to some other argument, signals an interest in winning an apparent point rather than in helping people actually understand. This is rhetoric, and at its worst it is very dangerous thing.

I know nothing of your purposes or motives. You may very well be in a state deserving pity more than anything else. But the way you argue is dangerous -- to your country, your community, and to your soul.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#74

Post by jacoblyles »

kabdib wrote: post #47
sageikosa wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She doesn't need your vote.

But her oppponents do. And her opponents could use some cash, too.

The alternative to Feinstein last election was a Republican that merely hadn't said anything on internet freedom issues - as opposed to Feinstein who in on the record as actively bad. My friends who were aware of how bad Feinstein is couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who might be no better and who was a social conservative to boot. I hope they at least left that section of their ballots blank.

The internet freedom lobby is comically inept. Voters don't even have the choice to do the right thing if they wanted to.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#75

Post by tptacek »

chernevik wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of your comment is right? That sense of the Senate resolutions make law? No, they don't. That sense of the Senate resolutions can matter in later court cases? Maybe, but I'm guessing a failed resolution on a failed bill matters a lot less in court than the successfully passed bill by the same author that became public law less than a year later that says the opposite . Beyond that, it's hard to even imagine…

I know very little about you. I've been talking about the signature shape of your arguments. And I don't know anything of your motivations. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? If so you'll understand that it is possible, indeed sometimes common, for people to take rhetorical stances without actually understanding the position they are taking, out of a reflexive support for their party / factio…

Oh for fuck's sake. Never mind.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#76

Post by enraged_camel »

downandout wrote: post #44

On this issue, Biden was clearly on the wrong side of history (and some of the fundamental tenets upon which the US was founded). But I don't think anyone, even ardent Obama supporters, would argue that he's the brightest star in the sky anyway. He is perhaps the strongest protection against an Obama assassination, since no one would want him to take office. Fortunately, the system worked in this case. A dangerous la…

>>He is perhaps the strongest protection against an Obama assassination, since no one would want him to take office.

I would argue that the Secret Service is by far the strongest protection.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#79

Post by chernevik »

tptacek wrote: post #75
chernevik wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very little about you. I've been talking about the signature shape of your arguments. And I don't know anything of your motivations. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? If so you'll understand that it is possible, indeed sometimes common, for people to take rhetorical stances without actually understanding the position they are taking, out of a reflexive support for their party / factio…

Oh for fuck's sake. Never mind.

What I DO know about you?

You can't argue worth a damn.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#80

Post by FreakLegion »

chernevik wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of your comment is right? That sense of the Senate resolutions make law? No, they don't. That sense of the Senate resolutions can matter in later court cases? Maybe, but I'm guessing a failed resolution on a failed bill matters a lot less in court than the successfully passed bill by the same author that became public law less than a year later that says the opposite . Beyond that, it's hard to even imagine…

I know very little about you. I've been talking about the signature shape of your arguments. And I don't know anything of your motivations. Have you read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? If so you'll understand that it is possible, indeed sometimes common, for people to take rhetorical stances without actually understanding the position they are taking, out of a reflexive support for their party / factio…

I won't speak for Thomas, but I used to teach "Politics and the English Language" in rhetoric and argumentation courses. There are two important things worth pointing out here:

1. Your understanding of the problem domain of language and politics, at least in this post, is incredibly naive. For a rigorous analysis of the subject, try something like Chaïm Perelman's Treatise on Argumentation or one of Ronald Dworkin's books.

2. Your comment being right and Thomas' comment being right aren't mutually exclusive. What he said is correct. What you said is also correct. Your attempt to make your point invalidate his is what's popularly called shifting the goalposts. It's what people do when they want to, as you put it, win points.

Also, as a point of order, your whole shtick of suggesting that someone has taken a position out of blind partisanship without really grasping what's at stake in it yadda yadda -- that's never a constructive way to approach a discussion. Everything you're accusing Thomas of, you're guilty of yourself. Whence Thomas' dismissal, which brings to mind Aristotle:

A man should not enter into discussion with everybody or practice dialectics with the first comer as reasoning always becomes embittered where some people are concerned. Indeed, when an adversary tries by every possible means to to wriggle out of a corner, it is legitimate to strive, by every possible means, to reach the conclusion; but this procedure lacks elegance. -- Topics 8.14.164b

Post reply on HN