The US has gone F&*%ing mad
medium.com
medium.com
The arguments in favor of restricting or banning the two technologies appear (to me) very similar. There exists a technology that, in the hands of a law-abiding person, can be used for legitimate purposes, including protecting oneself from aggression. But in the wrong hands, the same tech can be used for great harm. The logic in favor of restrictions goes like this: Most law-abiding people don't actually require this form of protection, so we should restrict access to prevent a malicious person from causing harm.
Therefore it's not surprising to me that 51% of Americans in a recent poll are siding with the FBI over Apple. Many of those same Americans are probably in favor of the assault weapons ban, etc, too.
Also, if you're a "good guy" and carry a gun, it is in hopes that you don't use it. By contrast you actually use crypto as a matter of day-to-day safeguarding of communication and documents. Each time you https: somewhere, you're "firing the crypto gun".
Crypto is no more a weapon than oxygen. The demented mind of a killer burns carbohydrates in the presence of oxygen, just like your brain. Oxygen also burns down buildings. We can't ban oxygen.
Crypto is an essence, like oxygen; we need it to have confidence in privacy and authenticity so that we can proceed in day to day business.
We don't have to fire a gun at some target in order to proceed in day to day life; when that is the case, it's called war.
In one of its most famous formulations, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
I don't think the comparison between guns and encryption is fair at all, if anything, encryption might be like the balaclava that the shooter uses to cover their identity.
The difference being how you framed that to begin with: Many people have and continue to use guns to provide food and protection.
If we ban guns because a small group of people misuse them, I want:
1) Automobiles banned: http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Kill-Vehicles-as-Weapons/dp/088...
2) Knives banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre & http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attac...
2.1) Sharp objects in general banned: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breakingnews/offbeat/man-k...
The argument is always "guns make it easier to kill others". This is almost always touted by people who've never shot a gun or have never aimed a gun. Worse, they target the wrong kind of guns [0]. Namely, rifles and shotguns and "scary looking guns" that are used less often than knives are used for murder.
The only compelling argument one can make is that "given the choice between a blunt object, a knife, or a gun, most murderers pick guns". There is little to no evidence that removing guns removes murderers. The reasoning that they would simply pick a different weapon seems to be tossed aside and ignored.
I don't and never will own a gun. Before anyone tries to justify my "owning a gun" as their argument for why I'm biased by supporting gun rights.
[0] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...
If you check the Caltrain schedule on your phone to pick a train to jump in front of, is that suicide by crypto?
Your argument is that cypto and guns should be viewed as equivalent because they are 'technology that, in the hands of a law-abiding person, can be used for legitimate purposes, including protecting oneself from aggression'.
That's a very broad category, isn't it? It would include anything which was ever used as an improvised weapon against aggressors. For example, the Provisional IRA "were widely perceived within the nationalist community as being defenders of Irish nationalist and Roman Catholic people against aggression." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_A... ).
The IRA used ANFO bombs extensively across two decades. ANFO of course also has many legitimate purposes
Under your definition, ANFO possession and use should be as unrestricted as gun or crypto possession and use, yes?
If not, why not?
If so, what other currently restricted items fall in this category?
Whoa there, I never said they were equivalent. I said that they have some similarities.
> ANFO possession and use should be as unrestricted as gun or crypto possession and use, yes?
I'm not saying that. And moreover, I have zero desire to re-enact the same old gun rights vs gun control Internet flame war yet again. Please don't try to slot me into either side of those standard arguments.
What I am saying is that (1) there are similarities between the two technologies and their potential for misuse, (2) it's not surprising that many people want to ban or restrict both of them, and (3) it is surprising (to me, at least) that there are so many people who feel so strongly that one should be banned and the other unlimited.
Maybe a better way to say it would be this: If you support limits on the kinds of firearms and explosives that people are allowed to own, why don't you also think there should be limits on the kinds of cryptography that people are allowed to own? The closest analogue seems to be weak "export grade" crypto from the 90's -- RC4 with 40-bit keys, etc. Or maybe key escrow.
As I said, ANFO also fits into category (1), which is why (2) it's not surprising that many people want restrictions on ANFO. Are you (3) equally surprised when people who want strong public strong crypto also want people to have explosives training and even a license to work with ANFO?
Do you think ANFO fits into the category? Why or why not?
> Do you think ANFO fits into the category? Why or why not?
It's a very interesting question. This is a great example, thanks for bringing it up. I guess I'm OK with restrictions on ANFO in the same way I'm OK with our (US) current restrictions on Browning .50 machine guns. At the same time, I doubt I'd get too worked up if someone proposed to relax either of those.
I have heard some people talk about trying to restrict access to cow poop -- the fertilizer component of a homemade ANFO bomb like the one used by domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City. To me, that feels like going way too far.
It's a complicated issue. What do you think?
Thank you. The multiple downvoters I got appear to believe otherwise.
> I guess I'm OK with restrictions on ANFO in the same way I'm OK with our (US) current restrictions on Browning .50 machine guns.
That is where I think the comparison between crypto and guns breaks down. You're okay with restrictions on more powerful weapons - are you okay with restrictions on civilian use of more powerful crypto?
No, I don't think you are. I am not. The use cases and threat models are very different. For example, I think we are under frequent though usually irregular attack by people who want to acquire "secrets", which includes credit card and blackmail information but also more prosaic marketing information and the more Orwellian large-scale government data mining.
I think it's more appropriate to compare crypto to another type of munition - personal armor. (The United States Munitions List has the category Personal Protective Equipment. This includes "Body armor providing a protection level equal to or greater than NIJ Type IV".)
Yes, some people want to make access to armor more difficult, because it it used sometimes when committing a crime ("in the wrong hands, the same tech can be used for great harm").
But unlike the physical world, on the internet we face attacks every day. If there were random shootings in everyone's normal life then there wouldn't be the call to get rid of personal armor. Moreover, we face increasingly powerful attacks on crypto, and need to have mechanisms which can keep secrets against decades of future improvements.
> cow poop -- the fertilizer component of a homemade ANFO bomb
Whoever you heard that from was mistaken. The fertilizer component was ammonium nitrate fertilizer, not cow poop.
> It's a complicated issue. What do you think?
My primary interest is in highlighting how the argument you made doesn't really support your thesis.
As for my own beliefs on the topic, and bearing in mind that you wrote "I have zero desire to re-enact the same old gun rights vs gun control Internet flame war yet again.", I think the distinctively American views[1] for gun ownership are rooted in the US history of Native American genocide and Black slavery, and are an expression of a form of white male power and machismo. I see no reason to discuss it further as this pigeonhole is well known.
[1] By 'distinctively American' I mean to exclude the arguments one might hear in, say, Sweden for having a gun; eg, hunting and the fun hobby of target shooting.
A couple of hundred years ago the second amendment was a critical and important component of America, because it allowed the people to protect themselves against the government. That threat of direct violence is now much less, but in it's place the government now threatens our freedom by threatening our privacy. And this is a very real threat. And damage that this would do is far far greater in an information society. Huxly's 1984 wasn't a book about physical combat fought with guns it was a war fought with information.
Huxley was Brave New World, Orwell was 1984.
Contrary to the impression given in the US media, there are a lot of privately owned guns in Europe. Even in the UK, there are over 700,000 licensed gun owners. Germans can own almost anything that an American can, including handguns and so-called "assault rifles".
European countries require licenses for firearms. You have to pass tests, prove yourself to be of good character and demonstrate a legitimate purpose for gun ownership. Your guns need to be registered and stored in a safe place. Your license can be revoked if you do something reckless or criminal with a firearm.
The difference between crypto and a gun is that you can't actually kill someone with cryptography. A more reasonable comparison is with cars; that comparison shows the oddity of attitudes in the US. Few Americans would argue that you shouldn't need a driving license or that cars shouldn't be registered and insured. Few Americans see vehicle inspection as an affront to civil liberties.
> [Picture of guns] [Picture of iPhone] [Picture of perpetrators (not present)]
The actual correct choice is missing.
The author doesn't see this as two sides of the same coin? People have the right to protect their privacy using encryption. They also have the right to protect their lives using arms. Just because encryption can be used to "protect terrorists" doesn't mean that is it's only use or even it's predominant use. You could say the same for firearms. The arguments surrounding gun control and encryption control are identical.
That's the same coin which currently says that you can have your own military flame thrower in the US but you can't export flame throwers to other countries without a license.
So I don't think that coin is really relevant to the topic of being able to defend yourself or your privacy.
The flip side is that while mental illness is not surprisingly strongly correlated with mass shooters, the reverse is not true, the vast majority of the mentally ill are not a danger to anyone but themselves.
Government doesn't like encryption because it limits their ability to track/monitor people. Tracking is only supposed to apply to foreign actors but in a nation of immigrants everybody is essentially treated as a threat. compared to traditional ineffective methods (ie investigation, witness testimony, etc) of law enforcement tracking provides objective evidence of wrongdoing and removes human error from the equation.
Unfortunately, in such an overly litigious society where it's nearly impossible for people to live their day-to-day lives without knowingly/unknowingly breaking the law, tracking becomes just another government funded system of subversion.
Industry hates encryption because of crypto currencies. The banking industry has worked very hard to centralize it's power and eliminate competition. Fortunately, for them there's no alternative. So there's no way for people to objectively measure whether or not using one standard, centralized, and strictly controlled/manipulated currency is a good thing. By default, we delegate an unbelievable amount of power/control to a very small and centralized group of individuals on the basis of 'trust us'. Previously, there was no alternative so people quit asking whether or not that's a really bad idea.
Crypto currencies aren't a threat to the current system of currency control. Rather they're an existential threat to the concept of central currency control as a whole.
When the driving influence of government need is combined with the financial backing of industry, laws get passed. Whether or not they're detrimental to the individual rights of the people.
Guns have no such problems. They're guaranteed by the constitution. A ton of government influence/resources comes directly from special interest groups that focus on gun rights.
Industry is making a killing from all of the panic caused by the threat of removing gun ownership rights.
Even if gun ownership magically became illegal overnight it would be impossible to enforce. They couldn't get the people to give up drinking alcohol during prohibition despite overwhelming support from the majority conservative Christians community at the time. What do you expect will happen when they go up against the 'you can take my guns, when you can pry them from my cold dead hands' crowd.
Attempting to outlaw guns in the US is the equivalent of the government declaring war on the people. No matter how you spin the moral imperative, it'll never happen.
So why do people bother debating it? Because there's an unbelievable amount of money, power, influence that can be made from stirring up panic over morally contentious issues.
Politicians get a ton of exercise by grandstanding on their personal moral/liberty driven platforms. Industry rakes in a ton of money by capitalizing on the uncertainty caused by the panic. The media has a hey day over all the controversy and publishes endless streams of analysis, reactions, counter reactions, speculation, etc. It's a modern day bonanza for everybody involved.
Except the people suffer because all the chaos creates and perpetuates a general culture of anger and mistrust between people divided on arbitrary lines. Cultural beliefs are very difficult to objectively measure because they last an entire generation. Without a central figurehead to influence the direction of a culture, individuals very rarely if ever change their position once it's established.
I can't think of a better strategy to divide, subvert, and conquer an entire population of people. Divide people's moral identity in enough ways that suddenly they have nothing in common. All it takes is a few morally ambiguous issues and the backing of the media. The effects last a generation so a minor investment pays dividends for many decades.
It's basically a thought virus for entire populations of people. Only those who are capable of thinking/acting independently of their personal moral beliefs are immune to it's effects.