On Oct 11, 2014 7:55 PM, "Benjamin Kreuter" <[1]brk7bx@virginia.edu>
   wrote:
   >
   > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 00:36 +0100, Alfie John wrote:
   >
   > > As the US State Department classifies cryptography as a munition,
   > > shouldn't the use of cryptography be protected under the 2nd
   Amendment?
   >
   > 1. The second amendment is not without limits.  You cannot possess a
   > machine gun without a license, for example.  The second amendment is
   not
   > a free pass to possess or distribute arms.

   I never understood this though! Doesn't it significantly weaken the
   second amendment? What could weigh up to constitutional values, and who
   is authorized to judge? Please don't say politicians...

   > 2. The classification is only relevant for exporting a product from
   the
   > USA.  Nothing stops you from possessing or distributing cryptography
   > within the US.

   Which is probably the only reason for the classification anyway (that
   and how useful it is!).

   > Really though, that classification is an anachronism that predates
   PCs
   > and the Internet.  Instead of invoking it (which is a kind of
   > endorsement), we should be trying to get rid of it entirely.  We need
   to
   > make the case that cryptography is not some kind of military device,
   but
   > a necessity in a computerized society as a low-cost safeguard against
   > various abuses and crimes.  Calling cryptography "munitions" is as
   > absurd as calling combination locks "munitions," and that point needs
   to
   > be driven home.

   It makes little difference. This is about current law. I'm sure the
   world would be a better place if we left it to the right people, but
   who could the right people be?

   > > 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?
   >
   > What makes you think that laws matter when it comes to the NSA?

   So, is there an accuracy difference in military and non military S&M
   weapons?

   > They openly ignored a court order, and nothing happened.  Their
   leadership
   > lied to Congress, and nothing happened.  They have conspired with
   > federal, state, and even local police forces and prosecutors to break
   > the law, and nothing happened.  Lawsuits are shut down in the name of
   > secrecy.

   It's probable they had a very serious internal discussion about these
   things. I also suspect many others wanted to affect change but that
   they found things became very hard for them from that point forward.
   (Please, someone get this reference!)

   > We are past the point of legal arguments.  We should think of the NSA
   as
   > we would think of the Chinese government: big, scary, actively
   working
   > to subvert computer security, and beyond the reach of the law.

   For me it's both foreign superpowers with nukes and a lot of people
   beleving in very self-justified governments. Although, that's the US
   and China, not the NSA seperately.

   Thing is, the NSA is just another program on USGOV payroll.
   Theoretically democratic parts of the government can indeed shut it
   down. I just think the NSA is too influential and self-serving to let
   that happen. Which sort of means the NSA runs the nation. But, of
   course, that's a carefully curated image that may be a total fiction.

   So, should we treat them as a theoretical adversary and move on?
   Advocate against them at every opportunity, but just, move on?

References

   1. mailto:brk7bx@virginia.edu