U.S. Senate bill crafted with DEA targets end-to-end encryption

Strangely enough since raw milk is sold for "dog/animal use" that limits any liability for human consumption since it's explicitly sold for not human consumption.

You could also easily just slap liability to the seller of known harmful substances (see the sibling to your comment) or enforce warning labels as on tobacco products (eg "this product makes you shoot people and shooting people will get your thrown in jail").

2) No I don't think we would need to ban it. Allow people who want to use it to lock themselves in a cell for 12 hours and rage against some padded walls. There probably would be a thriving market for that sort of thing [0]. We let people drink and if you drink and drive someone will probably die - the solution is not to let people drive after drinking. You're basically describing a strong form of alcohol. We already tolerate this sort of risk.

If you want to argue that a substance exists that is so terrible that people who consume it need to be locked up, you should name the substance and provide some argument for why it is so bad. The present state is locking people up for no obvious reason.

[0] https://thesmashroom.com.au/

Yes there are liars and cheats out there as in everything. Why can't the consumer decide who is lying and who isn't and what is safe and what isnt

* From c. 1910-end 1960’s, milk was treated by batch pasteurization at 63°C/145°F for 30 mins (pathogenic bacteria killed off as measured by 1960s technology, but flavor barely affected)

* Since then industry switched to HTST pasteurization at 72°C/162°F for 15 seconds (kills more pathogens; 120 times faster but affects flavor)

* Even higher-temperature methods are HHST and UHT [1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#Efficacy_agains...

[1]: https://www.idfa.org/pasteurization

(PS: By a twist of history, Al Capone was also responsible for expiration dates on US milk bottles)

If you'll sell $2000 more raw milk when you lie about its safety and the potential fine is $200k that will ruin your life if you're caught doing so, the trade off is not worth it. This is also the problem with corporate America in general, the fines are too damn small and are just taken as operating costs instead of nuclear deterrent.

I'm not a big fan of milk consumption, but maybe the US should just send farmers and industrials to jail when they put people lives at risks.

This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking).

Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.

By and large that is already the law. It is already illegal to harm someone else.

This is a significant and annoying factor of many knee-jerk reactions that harshly criminalise already illegal things. That was how the rollback of basic liberties went after 9/11 for example - there was a pretence that somehow terrorism wasn't already illegal and effectively policed. And we ended up with mass spying and about as much terrorism as there ever was. Similar to this, really. I doubt the amount of drugs taken will change, they are just looking for excuses to spy more.

Should people be held responsible for crimes committed under the influence? Absolutely, to a significant extent, though there are some gradations there. Should people be denied medical treatment for their ailments because some people believe they're a moral failing, when all the evidence proves they are in fact medical ailments? Absolutely not.

Why when people do something you don’t like do you want to control them by removing access to medicine?

Also the fact that you include "creatine" among those substances is extremely ridiculous, creatine is available OTC and present in many foods, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Lip-fillers are not substances that you ingest or inject in your bloodstream, they're part of surgeries.

The FDA should be here to say this is recommended for this and that purpose. Here are the recommended dosages. Not to forbid you from using something. Every dangerous substances should have warnings on them like "this could kill you/give you cancer/mental illnesses" or even "not meant for human consumption".

Your terms are acceptable.

After the civil war many people became concerned that white women would get abortions and be outbred by the blacks. By 1910 it was illegal in every state.

I think it's interesting that this history has been forgotten.

In most countries ganja isn't legal either.

But to that, I'd also point out that "refusing help" is hardly the reason seattle/portland have so many homeless people. A lot of these people have been priced out of apartments. Some have suffered from mental health issues (or have developed mental health issues after becoming homeless).

My son's teacher's aid was temporarily homeless while being fully employed. She was simply priced out of living anywhere. Do you think that was a result of substance abuse?

The attitude of your post is actually part of the reason homelessness is so bad. It's the view that people are homeless because they did something wrong to deserve it. Addressing homelessness requires compassion and funds. You can never make it go away all together, but you can relieve it simply by giving people a place to exist.

Between 60-75% of homeless people are not on any drugs or alcohol. They are just homeless. In addition, Housing First initiatives have seen sharp drops in addiction.

Not the folks struggling to get housing (just build more and give it away for operating/maintenance cost, don’t recoup capital investment ). Just the few 10-20% of the highly visible ones with mental health problems (and the like 3% that are just asses- every large enough group of people has got ‘em!).

Just because the solution can be expressed simply doesn't mean it's "easy".

I'm neither and addict or ex-addict. But I am an ex puritan/teetotaler. I'm well aware of how they think, preach, and talk about this stuff. I'm living proof that it's not beyond them, but the fact is you have to abandon your puritan/teetotaling beliefs to actually understand the problem.

The swiss model where things can be raised to referendum seems pretty reasonable to me (Swede). I'd love it over here, so we can tell our government (including the party I voted for) to kindly shove it sometimes.

The point still stands that we're better off with a democracy.

Personally I'd love an amendment declaring our right to privacy, though we really just need to better enforce illegal search and seizure.

> I’m also wondering what good to see in an armed citizenry being “not shabby” - and before you say something to the effect that it “keeps our government in line” try to remember they have stratospheric death robots that think your ar-15 is just adorable.

So are you saying we shouldn't have the right to arm ourselves because we're already so outmatched by our own government?

And to clarify here, the goal of an armed citizenry and armed militias was extremely important when we didn't have a standing military. The original goal was much less about actually making sure citizens come uld overthrow their own government, that's a modern view usually held by those who don't realize how terrible a civil war would actually be.

I'm of the opinion that we should get rid of this farce that we must have a permanent, massive standing army rather than attempting to disarm all our citizens. Our military needs something to do as long as it's there, we're always going to be looking for a fight to prove why they exist.

The idea that one could be convicted and jailed for saying something deemed offensive in public is completely insane. If I think the PM is being an asshat I would like to be able to say that openly without fear of jail time.

I don't have as much experience with the UK, but with regards to Canada I would indeed consider things there to be shabby. A peaceful protest should never be justification for the government to shut down bank accounts of private citizens. Hell even a violent protest shouldn't lead to that kind of intervention, we were shutting down bank accounts during BLM protests which were sometimes anything but peaceful.

Now, none of this is half as good as colonial times. In the United States, we didn't see much restriction of the arms market until the 1930s. Americans freely traded all classes and varieties of weaponry -- small arms, cannons, swords, &c -- during the colonial era and for more than a century after. Americans today have much less of the freedom promised by the 2nd Amendment than we used to; but we have retained much more of this particular right of the English than any other English speaking country.

Yeah, that's an interesting distinction for sure. I mean, this has gone back to PGP and the encryption wars in the 90s where it was illegal to export an electronic version of PGP from the US under... ITAR, I believe (secure encryption was considered a munition and thus export-restricted?). And it was worked around by publishing the source code in a book, which could be exported just fine. Where it gets a bit more complicated is publication-restriction vs. use-restriction though; I'm sure I could readily find bomb plans on and possess the plans freely, but the moment I follow the directions in those plans I am committing a criminal act (in Canada at least it'd be "possession of a prohibited device").

The Griswold and Dobbs thing is a really unfortunate situation :(.

Up here in Canada, we've got a kind of interesting situation that really favours E2E and I wish I had a citation handy... basically, law enforcement cannot search your cellphone for evidence without a warrant, as expected, and also can't get a wiretap without a warrant. The situation that arose, though, was that one of the major telecommunication companies was keeping short-term SMS logs for ostensibly system debugging and law enforcement realized they could request those logs warrant-free. Because it was voluntary third-party disclosure, no one was "compelled" to disclose these logs and there was no protection in place for either party of the communication.

There's always space for confusion. I didn't think there wasn't. I just corrected your wrong assumption, it's not a big deal.

Worst case scenario, they can arbitrarily ruin people’s lives.

Hoping for the best, but planning for the worst in this case means fighting it tooth and nail.

The words "deliberately blind" can be found in this version.

But I'm sure even the lowest DEA agent knows they are fighting a never-ending battle. They will never 'end' this scourge this way. The better funded they are, the more scarcity they create and thus their cartel enemies make more profits and become more ruthless and well-equipped. They will never solve this problem by force and it's the only thing the DEA is designed to do.

I'm not blaming them per se. Rather the system that created the DEA and the current policies. They are just slaves of the system like we are. No politician wants to be seen to be 'weak on drugs'. Funding 'winners' with guns is politically great. Funding help for 'losers' sleeping on the street is not. So the theater continues.

I think what's needed is a realist approach. Think about the pain and suffering some drugs cause. Prioritise there. Heroin for example is a real hard path down to destruction and death once you start. It should be banned at all costs. I totally agree there.

However meanwhile America has finally realised that Marijuana is not so bad recreationally, but why is it still a Schedule 1 drug just like Heroin?

And at the same time Cocaine is heavily used in nightclubs and bank trading floors and really has heavy addiction and long-term damaging properties (though people seem to be managing ok with recreational use) yet still it's only Schedule 2?

I don't think drugs like Cocaine and Marijuana will ever stop being commonplace. So why not just accept and regulate them? America took 10 hard years to realise prohibition didn't work, yet this time it takes far too long to get the message.

In Holland we have always lead the way on legalisation though the current government has backtracked this somewhat leading to big cartels springing up, doing gunfights on the streets of amsterdam, with people ducking for stray bullets on the tram. Sometimes it seems, the message needs to be learned multiple times.

PS: I'm saying this as someone who has never used any drugs beside alcohol.

I can also say that first hand that Wikipedia likely would have been destroyed in 2006 by vexatious litigation if it weren't for S230. I've been involved in a number of other online forums and people trying to extort through legal threats is basically a constant, I'd be surprised if HN doesn't get them. With S230 these threats are fairly toothless. If they had any bite at all most smaller services just couldn't exist because the cost of dealing with them quite easily dwarfs the cost of providing the forum.

The fundamental issue I think your view faces is that even without S230 protection there is a lot of bad stuff in the world that we just can't stop. You could conjecture some further restriction of S230 that was narrow enough that it wouldn't make the liability an abuse vector, but since there is so much bad that we can't stop even where S230 is helpless, and even when the parties aren't like the big social media platforms and nearly immune to litigation... it's hard for me to imagine how limitations narrow enough to avoid abuse won't just also be pointless/ineffective.

I fully agree that there is bad crap out there-- but that doesn't mean that something can actually be done about it.

It's hard to discuss without a concrete proposal. Advocating for it absent one as you've done also seems dangerously close to advocating for any reduction, well considered or otherwise. I think at the end of the day our problems are anti-trust not content liability. The horrible practices of platforms wouldn't be such a big deal were it not for network effect lock-ins.

Bringing up TLS as if this bill is targeting it is missing the critical details of this new attack vector by our friendly geographical APT.