Two Years After FBI vs Apple, Encryption Debate Remains (axios.com) 175
It's been two years since the FBI and Apple got into a giant fight over encryption following the San Bernardino shooting, when the government had the shooter's iPhone, but not the password needed to unlock it, so it asked Apple to create a way inside. What's most surprising is how little has changed since then. From a report: The encryption debate remains unsettled, with tech companies largely opposed and some law enforcement agencies still making the case to have a backdoor. The case for strong encryption: Those partial to the tech companies' arguments will note that cyberattacks and hacking incidents have become even more common, with encryption serving as a valuable way to protect individuals' personal information. The case for backdoors: Criminals are doing bad stuff and when devices are strongly encrypted they can do it in what amounts to the perfect dark alley, completely hidden from public view.
Encryption only seems to be a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Encryption only seems to be a problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
Believe it or not politicians do listen to people with security knowledge. I have spoken to numerous Senators and members of the House on this issue over the last few years. Yes their knowledge is limited but the ones I have spoken to have grasped the complexity of the issue.
Two examples. One member of the House who is a former prosecutor explained to me how he evolved on the issue over time and now opposes backdoors. A member of the Senate who you see on the TV almost every night cornered me at a meeting to talk about encryption until his aides pulled him away. He too was originally uncertain why a back door was needed, but now understands the problem. They had mostly already come to these positions, but were seeking out further opinions. Which is exactly what we want them doing, asking questions.
And as of now there are no government requirements on backdoors. So far our arguments have won out. But this issue is not going away, and I will keep trying to have as many conversations as I can to keep the people in the position to decide informed. Members of Congress mostly know what the people around them tell them (they don't disagree with this assessment), and when it comes to tech that is mostly lobbyists. But there are groups and people working behind the scenes making the case. And they are being heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring your political opponents is how they win.
Re: (Score:2)
The head of the FBI is not technically a politician. He's a career civil servant, maybe not a particularly bright one, but there we are.
In any case, to yer average Joe, technology is indistinguishable from magic. There are frequent announcements of new whizzies, frequent enough that people just come to assume that anything is possible, just not quite yet done. In a way, that is understandable, they aren't being paid to learn tech or science, they have other priorities, e.g., kids, health insurance, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the head of the FBI merely controls politicians via illegal spying, blackmail, and other general thuggery. I think too many of us have let The X-Files go to our heads and think about the FBI as if it were really the sort of warm and fuzzy place that would employ Fox Mulder and Dana Sculley. The reality its that it is the house the J Edgar Hoover built. It still reveres Hoover's memory. And, indeed, it resides in the building constructed as a monument to Hoover and bearing his name.
In reality, Mulder
Re: (Score:2)
Those are who we always vote for.
Re: (Score:3)
Encryption or abuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that there is no middle ground here. Putting any sort of back door into encryption effectively renders it useless. The cops can say whatever they want but that is an indisputable fact and isn't negotiable even if we wanted to. You can have good encryption or for all practical purposes no encryption. There is literally no middle ground.
Even if we trusted the cops (and history tells us we shouldn't) the cops aren't the only party in play here. If the cops have a back door then so do black hats, criminals, foreign nations, and anyone else. So we get lots of whining by politicians and cops who are either clueless or disingenuous or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the numerous examples of our current political landscape forcing binary "With us or against us" type view points where compromise and middle ground does actually exist (gun control for example), Encryption really is an all or nothing proposition. Not for the usual political posturing reasons, but because that is just how math works. Since they don't understand the reasons (Numeracy, particularly as it pertains to encryption, being larg
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there is no middle ground here. Putting any sort of back door into encryption effectively renders it useless. The cops can say whatever they want but that is an indisputable fact and isn't negotiable even if we wanted to. You can have good encryption or for all practical purposes no encryption. There is literally no middle ground.
Even if we trusted the cops (and history tells us we shouldn't) the cops aren't the only party in play here. If the cops have a back door then so do black hats, criminals, foreign nations, and anyone else. So we get lots of whining by politicians and cops who are either clueless or disingenuous or both.
When you talk about an algorithmic back door I completely agree with you. That is horrifying and we should never do it. But I can imagine a far less threatening scenario that would address the situation that law enforcement mostly talks about, which is the inability to break into a locked phone. Put a hardware access method on the phone that lets the phone be decrypted at the cost of destroying the phone, and while I still think it is not worth doing, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as intentionally weakene
Re: (Score:2)
Put a hardware access method on the phone that lets the phone be decrypted at the cost of destroying the phone
Putting a self destruct device next to the backdoor still leaves you with no security, and a backdoor that can be remotely accessed based on bugs in your destruct device.
It is just magical thinking phrased as science fiction. But it lacks reality either way. Decryption must be based on math, a promise to self destruct is not math.
Re: (Score:2)
And then a pick pocket nabs your phone one fine day and sees you'll be on vacation next week, so he tips off his friend Benny the Burglar. About mid-way through your vacation he hoovers your bank account. When you get back home, it's empty.
Your only consolation is that your phone is (probably) fried so he won't run up your phone bill.
As others pointed out, if the self-destruct has a flaw, you're even more screwed.
Strong crypto is a better bet for your safety.
Lazy cops (Score:2)
ut I can imagine a far less threatening scenario that would address the situation that law enforcement mostly talks about, which is the inability to break into a locked phone.
I regard that as just too bad for them. I'm not about to give up my rights just because it makes their job harder. I firmly believe that we should allow 1,000 guilty men to go free rather than convict a single innocent man. We have the 5th amendment for a reason and I see no reason why we should allow it to be trampled on just to placate some lazy cops.
Put a hardware access method on the phone that lets the phone be decrypted at the cost of destroying the phone, and while I still think it is not worth doing, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as intentionally weakened software.
That is one of the dumbest ideas I've read in a while. Do you have any idea how fast some bored teenager or bad actor would start destroying phones inten
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we trusted the cops (and history tells us we shouldn't) the cops aren't the only party in play here. If the cops have a back door then so do black hats, criminals, foreign nations, and anyone else. So we get lots of whining by politicians and cops who are either clueless or disingenuous or both.
Think about it this way: while it hard to solve a crime, it is even harder to prevent a crime. On top of that it is much easier to track and measure "crimes solved" versus "crimes prevented"(you can measure year over year changes but attribution is difficult), and more "crimes solved" means promotions, more funding, recognition, etc. So the motivation is there for police to focus more on solving crimes than preventing them (especially crimes that do not involve risk of injury to life and limb). It's no
Prevention is easier and cheaper (Score:2)
Think about it this way: while it hard to solve a crime, it is even harder to prevent a crime.
It is almost always easier to prevent a crime than to solve one after the fact. A lot less costly too. If it were not easier to prevent crimes then there would be a lot more crimes committed than there are. Take shoplifting for instance. Companies spend a lot of resources preventing shoplifting because it is FAR more effective, cheaper, and easier than just trying to catch and punish the criminals. A manager of a store I once worked with said that the most effective tactics are really aimed to keep hon
Re: (Score:2)
Also remember that there is a real overlap between "cops" and "criminals". So access to such back-doors by criminals is basically ensured.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's probably possible to really harshly punish people who use non government sanctioned encryption. See: North Korea.
I think this went out with the Bernstein cases and the first amendment (my favourite one). Freedom of speech includes the freedom to exchange crypto algorithms, and I bet it also includes the freedom to use them.
The case against backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)
If you implement backdoors in your software, you can as well close shop. Nobody, at least no company with at least a hint of self preservation, will buy your product. If I cannot trust my company trade secrets to be secret from espionage because your product is insecure (and yes, a backdoor makes a product insecure BY DEFINITION), I will not use your product.
No "government only" backdoor is "government only" for long. First of all, the mere existence of such a backdoor gets known at some point in time, as the past history of deliberate leaks or accidental blunders have shown. And no later than this, the company that actively and deliberately puts backdoors in its security software is done for, for the reasons aforementioned. Yes, even if they "fix" this immediately. Why should I trust you that you have no backdoors now? Fool me once and all that.
Second, a general key into the secrets of every company worldwide is prized. Not by hackers. By governments. And governments have WAY other options at their disposal as any basement dweller or even organized crime. You have seen what North Korea does with people that li'l Kim simply does not like? Now imagine what they do with people that could give them the key to the holy grail. You know the key? Well, you may be in for a decision who you love more, your country or your kids. Almost every person has a weak spot. There are very, very few people who cannot be at least blackmailed if they cannot be bribed. Your life, your freedom, your credit, your family... everyone breaks at some point.
And state actors, especially when acting for repressive regimes, don't mind cutting your unborn son out of your wife if that's what makes you hand over what you want.
Re: (Score:3)
Why state such horse-shit with such authority? "the largest PIN you can have on an iPhone is six digits" -- what kind of crap is that? You can have a custom numeric or alphanumeric passcode. They can be much longer than six digits.
How can you not know this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By "well-kept secret", you appear to mean "well-kept from me". There are literally millions of people around the world who've not only figured this out, but actively use custom numeric and alphanumeric passcodes. In addition, of course, there's plenty of protection against brute-forcing, and the approach you describe for Apple to trivially circumvent their security is not possible, as is perfectly clear if you took the time to read what Apple actually writes about its security model. But never mind. You've
Re: (Score:2)
If you implement backdoors in your software, you can as well close shop. Nobody, at least no company with at least a hint of self preservation, will buy your product. If I cannot trust my company trade secrets to be secret from espionage because your product is insecure (and yes, a backdoor makes a product insecure BY DEFINITION), I will not use your product.
Apple already has a back door: their code-signing keys.
Calling that a back door is a stretch. Having the keys needed to sign firmware clearly wasn't intended as a backdoor, it was an operational necessity required to close the front door. You need signed firmware and hardware with ROM code that will refuse to load firmware without the correct signature so that attackers can't simply install their own malicious firmware. And in order to sign firmware, someone has to have the keys. Of course, those keys need to be carefully secured, but there are well-known techn
Re: (Score:2)
No, the code-signing keys are not a back door for the 5S and later. They are for the 5C and earlier, but I don't think Apple has sold them for over three years. In the 5S and later, the important security functions have been moved out of the OS and into dedicated silicon.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you talk about things you know nothing about, I suggest giving Apple's iOS Security Guide a proper reading and understanding: https://www.apple.com/business... [apple.com]
Not only are fully alpha numeric pass codes fully supported, Apple has taken steps to mitigate the "we've been forced to sign firmware" attack vector as well:
The passcode is entangled with the device’s UID, so brute-force attempts must be performed on the device under attack. A large iteration count is used to make each attempt slower. The iteration count is calibrated so that one attempt takes approximately 80 milliseconds. This means it would take more than five and a half years to try all combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode with lowercase letters and numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an iPhone 5S, which has the Secure Enclave. This is a bit of silicon with a few rigidly defined functions. It stores an AES-256 key, and has no way to output that key. It can decrypt or encrypt according to that key, and it can wipe the key. It can likely generate a new random key, but I don't know about it. It accepts passcode entries. It keeps track of the number of entries.
There's an easily accessible setting that says to wipe the phone (actually, wipe the AES-256 key) if ten incorrect pas
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is Slashdot. But it isn't the Slashdot from 10 years ago when you could assume that everyone in here understood basic IT concepts. Nowadays you more likely than not have to explain them.
Papers please, comrade ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically the argument is it is illegal to keep secrets from the government.
Enjoy your fascism!
So much for the 4th and 5th amendments. You no longer have any rights to such things.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not fascism. Fascism is like China with government controlled companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, one of the defining characteristics of fascism is disrespect of the individual and its freedoms. So yes, this is fascism. That China wants their own bit of fascism does not invalidate that similar forces are hard at work in the US. Or look at the Germans that now have censorship again by a sneaky legal trick. All the really bad old ideas are being reanimated by exceptionally bad people that are not fit to wield power of any kind, yet somehow (because the general population is deeply asleep) manage
"Debate" (Score:2, Insightful)
The lame MSM, who need the sheeple to believe that there are two actual sides to every story in order for their clickbait model to keep the the business swirling as high as possible around the toilet bowl for just a few more years, cannot possibly classify any fringe viewpoint as anything other than normal, because that would decimate their business.
Unless, of course, a viewpoint is abnormal enough that the clicks will happen automagically because of morbid curiosity, c.f. fla
Boot strap (Score:2)
Given hacking into things and spying on people and companies, most notably giant state and state-sponsored actors like China and Russia has had actual effects on the maintenance of power by thugocracies, I'd say prosaic criminal detection vanishes as an importance.
Exactly like the Founding Fathers observed always happened, and tried to prevent against with the core principle of the design of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Every backdoor for government "crime" so an FBI agent can get another notch
Meanwhile, on Slashdot... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The first problem is that there's provably no way to reconcile "only the One True Protector should have access to a backdoor" and "any backdoor can be, will be, and has been exploited by third parties". It's like hoping desperately to find some value of A such that "A & ~A == true". It won't (and can't) happen.
The second problem is that encryption only makes it more convenient for criminals to do the things they've always been doing anyway. If I wanted to communicate secretly with you, we used to meet i
Here's the deal... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cat is out of the bag (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument for backdoors is:
1. We can stop bad guys better.
2. It doesn't "really" hurt the US public for us to spy on everybody's shit if they don't know.
The counter argument is:
1. Are you sure you can stop bad guys?
2. It DOES HURT untold millions of innocent US citizens.
The problem is, the cat is out of the bag. Everybody knows spying is the norm, and that screws with people, good people, in a bad way.
Is it as lethal as getting shot by a criminal? No. Is it as bad as having a mean boss looking over your shoulder questioning everything you do to the point that you are afraid to sneeze? Yes, for some people the resounding answer is yes.
Re: The cat is out of the bag (Score:3)
It is only still a matter of debate ... (Score:4, Insightful)
because bone headed politicians are still arguing about it. By 'bone headed' I do not mean so stupid that they do not understand that you cannot have secret back-doors (although there are undoubtably some that are that stupid), but 'bone headed' in the sense that they continue to want to get their way irrespective of the practical impossibility and regardless of the damage that it will cause.
I suspect that some of them are playing a more subtle game, they secretly accept that it cannot be done but keep on pushing because they hope that the Tech companies will give way on something else that is more valuable to the politicians as a 'compromise' deal. Whatever this something else turns out to be I can guarantee that it will not be to your or my benefit.
Posturing like this also makes them sound good to Joe Sixpack who does not understand, but like politicians who talk hard against terrorists, etc - ie good for votes.
FULL 'MURICA (Score:2)
If you want to live in a country with the 2nd ammendment, where guns are sold liberaly "bicuzz there must be the right to, you know, eventually, maybe, defend ourselves against a tyrant democratic government, who happens to have access to nukes and bioweapons", then you also accept to live in a country where the bad guys that are not government also get that right.
Now, if you want to live in a country where the government can access most information about your life and your choices and your opinions, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly, the government itself presented this parallel to the public. What was Phil Zimmermann charged with, for releasing PGP? That's right: exporting munitions. Our own government, trying to remove the limits we centuries-a
Re: (Score:2)
Yeap. The government always has the advantage of media attention, and this enables them to twist ideas however they want. Trump's twitter account is a study-case of how influential the most stupid, yet popular ideas can be.
Just today he said the FBI's attention to Russia influence in elections is the root cause of the Florida shootings... I read it in a british newspaper, and the title said "Trump attempts to shift blame of shootings to FBI", and it seemde like a good title. Then I thought about it for a bi
Re: (Score:2)
You see, that's not what the second ammendment is for. I understand your concern of feeling impotent about protecting your family without gun access, due to insecurity wherever you are. There are places in bad shape throughout the nation. But the fundamental right of holding guns in the US exists for a much different purpose than defending your property and/or your family.
The 2nd was written like this because any argument, other than protecting yourself from a tyrant government, can be immediately, logicall
I never really understood the issue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I never really understood the issue (Score:2)
Because Apple has said that other than a security flaw, they cannot decrypt the phones if the owner has properly secured it. What they have told law enforcement repeatedly that older versions can be hacked that have unpatched security flaws. If the phone is fully patched, these flaws cannot be exploited.
In fact when dealing specifically with the San Bernandino phone, Apple said one way to access the phone was to wait for the phone to back up to the cloud which Apple controls and could grant access. Instead
Re: (Score:2)
And you do not seem to have the least clue what you are talking about. Apple is trying very hard to make sure they cannot do that in order to not lose all their business.
FBI, politicians, confirmed for IQ75 (Score:2)
Criminals are doing bad stuff WITH POINTED STICKS and they can do it in what amounts to the perfect dark alley, completely hidden from public view
Criminals are doing bad stuff {insert object here} and they can do it in what amounts to the perfect dark alley, completely hidden from public view
Let's just ban everything, since anything can, potentially, be used to commit a crime. You could use a STICK OF BUTTER to commit a crime, for fuck's sake. So let's ban EVERYTHING, we'll go back to being stark naked 24/7/365, living outdoors, and anyone picking up a stick or a rock is killed because they might be a criminal.
Think the above sounds stupid? It's not as stupid as LEOs and politicians not listening to the people whose business it is to devise encryption algorithms, who keep telling them over a
Re: FBI, politicians, confirmed for IQ75 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read the article you linked.
The government didn't actually "try to implement" anything. They wrote the algorithm, and then they tried to persuade manufacturers to build it into devices, which nobody was willing to do.
Some people in government did promote the chip.
The idea that "the government tried to implement this" is stupid and ignores the history. The government debated if they should try to implement it, and the answer that won that debate was no which means that the government more
Re: FBI, politicians, confirmed for IQ75 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a different definition of "tried" than that you used yourself?
No, thanks, I'll stick with dictionaries for word definitions.
Also, over 50% of your facts are manufactured, and would be corrected just by the wikipedia article linked above.
Re: FBI, politicians, confirmed for IQ75 (Score:2)
Please put out which facts are manufactured.
1. The government developed the system. Specifically the NSA. That includes the Skipjack algorithm.
2. The government namely the Clinton administration proposed and promoted the system.
3. At the hardware level chips were designed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI.
But according to you, the government didn't "try". So in other words you want to make up your own definitions.
What Debate? (Score:2)
If you oppose encryption or data security, place all your sensitive information online, un-encrypted and see what happens, you'll quickly change your mind about encryption and data security.
They want to enable their own crimes (Score:2)
These are, after all, the actions of a government that's afraid of its people for all t
And? (Score:2)
"they can do it in what amounts to the perfect dark alley"
And? Are dark alleys illegal? Do you get to peruse every personal document in my home because you saw me in a dark alley? I'm sorry, but there is no sound argument for destroying all encryption because a fraction of a percent of people use it in a bad way. The benefits of encryption far outweigh the drawbacks. For the bad car analogy enthusiasts, that's like banning personal vehicles because they cause more injuries than public transportation.
As
Actually, it does not (Score:2)
There are just some people that insist on continuing to be stupid. As they are high-level government employees, that is not surprising.
Obsessive haters of individual freedoms (Score:2)
Everything must be accessible to the government, nothing can be private. There is a term for people like that: It is "Fascist".
Re: Look to the constitution for answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck off. I donâ(TM)t want the government to keep me safe. I want the government to keep me free.
Re: (Score:2)
What we'd need today is a government protecting us from our government.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, usually you have the second worst government because people were afraid that the even worse one could become it if they don't vote for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off. I donâ(TM)t want the government to keep me safe. I want the government to keep me free.
...he said, from the safety of his walled garden prison.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think the want to give you that choice.
Re:Look to the constitution for answers (Score:5, Insightful)
"I need to dip into your shit whenever I like. It's for your own... uhm, safety."
Re:Look to the constitution for answers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is completely valid and convincing. You just need to see what they actually mean: They want to keep you safe from yourself, by being able to lock you up or kill you whenever you have an unauthorized thought. That makes everybody safe that does not have such thoughts, and the rest are obviously "criminals". This is a fundamentally fascist idea and it is on the raise again. Like the last fascist catastrophes did not happen.
Re:Look to the constitution for answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
You should read the Constitution more carefully. The ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Constitution is about what the federal government is allowed to do. It does not enshrine certain rights and exclude others.
Ninth? Fourth! (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re: (Score:3)
4th doesn't apply. These are aren't "unreasonable" because of terrorists and children. WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN? Are you a terrorist?
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up! I was being facetous but the parent is right on point. There's legal reasons why the 4th (or any other number) doesn't apply too.
Re:Ninth? Fourth! (Score:4, Insightful)
..... no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.....
From their perspective, there is nothing on earth an LEO can't have access to if they have a warrant. They have been conditioned their entire career (life?) to believe that. Now strong crypto means, basically, "Wah, my warrant is broken!". I'm sure it is quite life altering for them. Some may even need therapy.
Judges are probably taking it pretty hard too.
Re: Look to the constitution for answers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
You should read the Constitution more carefully. The ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Constitution is about what the federal government is allowed to do. It does not enshrine certain rights and exclude others.
No need to reach for the catchall 9th in this case. The 4th amendment clearly guarantees a right to privacy. Emphasis mine, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have stopped at the 4th. It can be argued that a right to privacy is explicitly stated there. The 9th just seals it, but only for the feds. State governments were free to do whatever.
Not without violating the 4th, according to Article VI, clause 2.
Oh great! It's Constitutional Interpretation Wars!!! More popcorn!
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. Thanks for that one. So, interestingly enough, that brings me to the second, which based on that reading essentially says that any law denying guns is unconstitutional, Supreme Court common sense rulings be damned. Perhaps it's time to pass an amendment clarifying the second for today's world. We no longer have the same needs, worries, nor civil issues from back in the 1700s, and perhaps it is time to amend the second to allow reasonable controls.
No, it isn't.
The problem lies in the weasel-word "reasonable". That is EXACTLY the type of language that "slippery-slopes" are paved-with!!!
As ambiguous as the wording of the 2nd Amendment is, it still has the all-important phrase "shall not be infringed."
Anything else invites a police-state.
And the Courts have hammered out the rest of the ambiguities, and taken the mantle of "interpreting" the Founders' language as it applies to "modern" times. And they have also ceded much governmental restraint afforded
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work. The government is fucking retarded and corrupt. There is no legal way to restrict people's rights to keep or bear arms in this country without first amending the constitution. Yet they shit on our rights all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work. The government is fucking retarded and corrupt. There is no legal way to restrict people's rights to keep or bear arms in this country without first amending the constitution. Yet they shit on our rights all the time.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't.
The problem lies in the weasel-word "reasonable". That is EXACTLY the type of language that "slippery-slopes" are paved-with!!! As ambiguous as the wording of the 2nd Amendment is, it still has the all-important phrase "shall not be infringed."
So you agree with my core premise - that all gun regulations are unconstitutional according to that interpretation?
Anything else invites a police-state....
So you're 100% for giving every convict on release a loaded M-16A, a grenade launcher and a Colt 45? If not, why not?
If you said no, then do you oppose letting them buy one? What if they're a convicted murderer? A multiple murderer?
How about if they're batshit insane but kept "ok" and ready for release thanks to modern medications? (I ask this because these particular folks tend to not like how the drugs make them feel and tend to stop taking them on occasion)
Short story IMNSHO - guns need strong regulation, at least to the level we allow people to drive cars, and should likely be registered yearly plus inspections just like cars, with a yearly fee to cover registration. On top of that, I'd propose that you have to be 21 or even 25 to purchase a gun, all fall under the guise of a well-regulated militia, which was the justification for the 2nd. Technically, with the second taken as a whole, that doesn't even go against the second, it falls under the well-regulated militia portion of the clause. As for the age of majority, 21 is that age and those under it are not part of the "people" under the Constitution for legal purposes (aren't lawyers fun?) so an outright ban for under 21s also does not fall afoul of the 2nd and that can be done at the federal level. Note that none of what I proposed prevents any one wanting a gun for hunting or sport that is not a convict or mentally unstable, both cases which have special rules regarding rights. It does impose regulations, which is not an infringement as implied by the 2nd. I specifically left out defense, because the 2nd implies that is the onus of the well-regulated militia, not individuals. In today's world in the US, if you need a weapon for defense there's a bigger problem that your weapon isn't going to help with unless you happen to be that very very tiny 0.000001% of the population that lives essentially in wilderness areas where wildlife is actually a threat.
Not so humble opinion, INDEED!
I was trying to have a civil discourse with you; but then you just started spewing nonsense.
1. The "age of majority" is 18. Has been ajudicated that since people bitched about being able to be drafted and die at 18, but not able to vote.
2. The Supremes have decided that the term "Militia" originally applied to "all males between the ages of 18 and 45", and therefore, the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a power (governments don.'t have rights) of the government.
3. Y
Re:Look to the constitution for answers (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that this is not the correct tool. You gain no safety because the criminals will simply move on while you eradicate the safety of your citizens by exposing them to hackers (both organized crime and foreign government sponsored) that get a hold of that backdoor.
"Government only backdoors" do not exist. If you create an entry point for a benign actor, you create an attack vector for a nefarious one.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this is not the correct tool. You gain no safety because the criminals will simply move on while you eradicate the safety of your citizens by exposing them to hackers (both organized crime and foreign government sponsored) that get a hold of that backdoor.
"Government only backdoors" do not exist. If you create an entry point for a benign actor, you create an attack vector for a nefarious one.
Since when is the Government a Benign Actor?
Re: (Score:2)
"If you create an entry point, even if it was for a benign actor, you create an attack vector for a nefarious one."
Better?
Re: (Score:3)
As even the NSA had it's malware stolen, we have solid proof that secrets cannot be kept reliably. So yes. If they do this, it will have catastrophic effects. Of course, the proponents of doing so have not enough actual understanding (and extreme egos in addition) to be able to understand that. They must be stopped nonetheless or they will destroy society.
Re: Look to the constitution for answers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Math doesn't work that way. If a force is evil and powerful enough maybe they can get people to stop doing math, but they're not going to manage to change how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
When you realize that some of those uneducated have the power to put you in jail for pretty much your whole life, you will learn to do math another way.
The world has a funny way of dumping all over those that think that way. For instance, Indiana once declared PI to be 3. And in turn the world decided that technology and industry wouldn't exist in Indiana; fast forward 50 years and Indiana has the worst economy in the midwest.
Math (and Physics) just is, it doesn't care about you or what you want or think. Resisting those ideas is like not believing in gravity, gravity doesn't care, it will just slam you into that ground. Its like trying to argue with
Re:Look to the constitution for answers (Score:5, Interesting)
There’s some irony in an AC arguing that there’s no right to privacy.
I wonder, would you feel as comfortable stating your unpopular opinion if your account’s reputation was on the line?
Re: (Score:2)
There’s some irony in an AC arguing that there’s no right to privacy.
I wonder, would you feel as comfortable stating your unpopular opinion if your account’s reputation was on the line?
Especially since that AC is likely a Russian Troll...
Re: (Score:3)
I neither attacked a person nor an idea. I was merely observing that his ability to post as an AC is only possible thanks to the very thing he is attacking. If you viewed those idle observations as an attack, that might suggest something about your own biases.
But if an attack is what you're looking for, I'm happy to oblige.
1) The AC incorrectly believes that the Constitution "guarantees" our rights. It doesn't. Nor does it grant us our rights. Rather, it provides a non-exhaustive enumeration of rights that
Re: Look to the constitution for answers (Score:3)
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee anything, numbnuts; it enumerates them... and anyhow, it it doesn't fucking need to; the right to privacy is implicit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
I agree. Let's look at the Constitution, along with the Amendments we've made to it.
We can start with the Government looking at it, and then reviewing all of the blatantly illegal processes and procedures they employ, under the guise of protecting us.
Forget a full review. We probably won't even get past the 4th Amendment.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Over 250 years old and yet it still rings true today.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, the Devil is in the details: essential liberty? Who gets to define that? Let's try that out on abortion. A woman should have the essential liberty to chose. A fetus should have the essential liberty to choose. Oh, gee, it gets complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, the Devil is in the details: essential liberty? Who gets to define that? Let's try that out on abortion. A woman should have the essential liberty to chose. A fetus should have the essential liberty to choose. Oh, gee, it gets complicated.
Yes, it gets complicated quickly, but we're talking about the considerable abuses of citizens and privacy here, so let's not stray too far off topic here, and focus on the 4th Amendment and below for now.
Besides, the Rights of a fetus and abortion are clouded even further with religious beliefs, making those discussions even more difficult to have.
Re: (Score:2)
essential liberty? Who gets to define that?
History.
Done.
Oh, and if you want to know what History did decide, you can start by adding SCOTUSblog to your daily reading. Then come back in 10 years, and we can talk about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Declaration of Independence covered that:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're consuming too much Newsvertainment to me. Put down the newsletter, turn of the AM radio, and maybe get some fresh air?
Re: (Score:2)