On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Alfie John <alfiej@fastmail.fm> wrote:
After the Apple encryption announcement, we had the usual pundits bring up the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse [1]:
"Attorney General Eric Holder, the US top law enforcement official, said it is "worrisome" that tech companies are providing default encryption on consumer electronics. Locking the authorities out of being able to physically access the contents of devices puts children at risk, he said.
...
Holder said he wants a backdoor to defeat encryption. He urged the tech sector "to work with us to ensure that law enforcement retains the ability, with court-authorization, to lawfully obtain information in the course of an investigation, such as catching kidnappers and sexual predators."
After reading Keybase cofounder Chris Coyne's response to the backdoor nonsense, it got me thinking about cryptography and the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
As the US State Department classifies cryptography as a munition, shouldn't the use of cryptography be protected under the 2nd Amendment?
Though it is perhaps helpful for them to make such classification here: a) that's in regards largely to exports, not internal use b) the phrase is 'arms shall not', not 'things on our list shall not', so any such classification list is irrelevent. Ignoring the NBC / large arms debate, crypto is clearly small arms in this context and thus shall not be infringed. Crypto is also clearly necessary to the security of a free people, and thus of/to the state being of the people. And shy of state failure requiring its use in support of revolt, crypto is clearly a defensive arm primarily against encroachment. In current example, mass surveillance, lack of individualized warrant, abuse of process, abuse of implied right to privacy, of the 1st, 4th and 5th, etc. It would certainly be an interesting use/case/argument to explore and test.