Cryptography, backdoors and the Second Amendment
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? If so, as the NSA continues its concerted effort to cripple encryption by providers [3] [4], shouldn't this be seen as the equivalent of the Department of Justice colluding with Smith & Wesson to manufacture guns that don't shoot straight and bullets that don't fire? Alfie [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/us-top-cop-decries-encryption-dem... [2] https://keybase.io/blog/2014-10-08/the-horror-of-a-secure-golden-key [3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-secur... [4] http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg12325.html -- Alfie John alfiej@fastmail.fm
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Alfie John
As the US State Department classifies cryptography as a munition, shouldn't the use of cryptography be protected under the 2nd Amendment?
You're expecting consistency, logic, or even honesty from a government? Your naivete is so /cute/! -- Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. -- Arnaud-Amaury, 1209
On 2014-10-09, Steve Furlong wrote:
As the US State Department classifies cryptography as a munition, shouldn't the use of cryptography be protected under the 2nd Amendment?
You're expecting consistency, logic, or even honesty from a government? Your naivete is so /cute/!
So is yours: obviously you can *have* and *use* it, it's just that you can't *export* it to the *terrorists* and the rest of the bad people who aren't you. Perfectly consistent. Of course perfectly fucked up from the viewpoint of a foreign libertarian like me as well. But it really is fully consistent, and it was so from the very start, right downto the basic classical liberal ideology I as well share: "there is only one correct law, it is universal, if you don't share it then you haven't Been Enlightened yet, and thus we for very good reason don't Mind you too much". "Till you join our movement of universal rationality..." So, then, as it's basically a valid argument, how about taking its contraposition? "As we then already know crypto is right, and it'ss used by precisely the right, righteous people all round, should it not be the case those who make a claim against are simply wrong." Should it not in fact be, that making a case against free crypto should be taken as a prima facie case of the speaker being a fascist, against democracy, a luddite, and an all-round bad guy? Out to get immortalized as the next Hitler? -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front +358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014, at 02:49 AM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
So, then, as it's basically a valid argument, how about taking its contraposition? "As we then already know crypto is right, and it'ss used by precisely the right, righteous people all round, should it not be the case those who make a claim against are simply wrong."
Should it not in fact be, that making a case against free crypto should be taken as a prima facie case of the speaker being a fascist, against democracy, a luddite, and an all-round bad guy? Out to get immortalized as the next Hitler?
Yes, that was my entire point. Alfie -- Alfie John alfiej@fastmail.fm
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Alfie John
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.
It sure should be seen as a second amendment thing. Although, so should drones and heavy weapons. A revolution is impossible for the US citizens, so there's not much point.
participants (5)
-
Alfie John -
grarpamp -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Sampo Syreeni -
Steve Furlong