Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> "Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order."

How can you utter that sentence and simultaneously not understand why your bill is effectively worthless for its stated purpose?




When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.


When encryption is outlawed, ATÝ5Îd}2abJf<²58={d4\!z')E[?Mï¥E


No, when encryption is outlawed, everyone is an outlaw.


... but only if they realize to use it.

Not to say that I'd approve this farce.


When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.


When guns are outlawed, only lawmen and outlaws will have guns. Good. That's the state of affairs in every developed country except one and it's demonstrably better in every way.


You may not have realized that your statement is ambiguous between the state of affairs and the sole exception.

Either way you meant it, that is your individual belief based upon your own preferences, and there are literally millions of people who would disagree with you on this particular point. If there were no exceptions, where would all those dissenters go?


except for all of these demonstrable ways: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/...


(Dunno what's in the book)

I hear hand guns in particular are quite accident prone. Even if there's less crime, we might still have more deaths.


I'd check your sources. Hand Guns are no more accident prone than long guns.


Not if you adjust for usage. On average people use Long guns more than hand guns.


Well, it was hearsay anyway. Not reliable at all.


That sounds like a totally unbiased source!

PS: I have actually been paid to look into crime statistics. Guns are bad, really really bad. But, you can twist statistics to say the sky is orange if you want to.


Try reading the book. The author is a journalist who set out to build a case against guns and this book holds the facts he found.

He came into it with a bias but still ended up with the opposite book from his intentions, due to honest research.


Don't pretend like that's a peer-reviewed source.


> That's the state of affairs in every developed country except one

Not even close to factual.


Aha! You caught wind of my subterfuge.


When subterfuge is outlawed, only wind will be..... I got nuthin'


These guys just don't get it... they'll come back saying "crooks are dumb" and that's the end of it. I remember this being discussed when Skype went backdoor friendly. They'll catch some even... just no one who knows what they're doing.


If only we could get a court order to prevent them from making bombs. I would feel oh so much safer!


It's what happens when legislators have precisely no domain knowledge. I used to be surprised at the naiveté and ignorance when politicians spoke on topics I knew a little about. I'm too old to be surprised any more.


It's very ironic that you talk about naiveté.

You think legislators do not understand the subject because of what they said?

You believe what the politicians say?


> You think legislators do not understand the subject because of what they said?

Depends. Frequently not as can be seen when the policy to achieve "x" does nothing of the sort, loses them the election or becomes some sort of personal vanity thing. Of course it depends on if the views expressed are of the politician or the party after you've attempted to pick out the double meaning. :)

> You believe what the politicians say?

If it's an independent I might. A party politician of any colour, usually not.


Just look at gun control arguments to see why people think outlawing activity will stop criminals.


Guns are somewhat difficult to produce.

This is more akin to knife control.


Any weapon analogy is bad for our side of the argument, because weapons sound to many people like things that bad people use to do bad things. Yes, I realize that knives are used in kitchens to cut vegetables, but with the way this discussion is rightly framed as a security thing, people are not thinking about kitchens.

I would prefer to see lock analogies. Here's a half baked example: This is like a law requiring all builders of buildings to install locks that can be opened by any person who gets access to a copy of a law enforcement key.


Personally I like that analogy because it was recently revealed that people can 3D print working keys from a photo of a key. So even the "physical" key is vulnerable to security attacks of a digital nature. All someone needs to do is get a photo of the global "key" and they can then get into anybody's safe.


You mean like a Knox Box[0]?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Box


It's substantially worse than that. This law makes all unbreakable locks illegal.


Any analogy is bad. The internet has no analogy in the physical world. Do not use analogies to discuss this issue.


No more difficult to produce than many illicit drugs. Potentially much easier even, with the right parts. Besides, there are plenty of other countries you can smuggle arms into the U.S. from given sufficient demand.

Of course the knife analogy is still useful. We all know the futility of outlawing software.


    > Just look at gun control arguments
    > to see why people think outlawing
    > activity will stop criminals.
Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Research


I read it. There seems to have been a bunch of studies that reached the consensus that the laws had little impact on a trend that existed before the laws and continued afterwords.

>The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported

>In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.

>In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[49] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence.

One of the only 'wins' seems to be that people who committed suicide were less likely to use guns, but more likely to use other methods.

>As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.

>Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.


>How can you utter that sentence and simultaneously not understand why your bill is effectively worthless for its stated purpose?

Pious idolization of the State.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: