Hacker News Reader

Comment by cromwellian | Hacker News Reader

People don't take a 256-bit cryptoalgorithm into a middle school and kill kids with it, so I don't think the analogy works exactly. Maybe if you print it out on paper, or use a floppy disk or CD, you could cut a few people.

View on HN

People who intend to enter a middle school and kill kids can hide their plans and communications using 256-bit encryption.

Edit: Devil's advocate.

Or they could be loners or they could meet and communicate face to face.

I suppose most people who shoot schools have no partners helping them, but at some point they may need to find information to help them carry the attacks, and encryption would help them conceal the fact that they have this information, and how much information they have.

I just think that a politician moved by the desire to do something could construe non-backdoored encryption as something that "helps the enemy."

Clearly we must curtail this dangerous "face-to-face" communication that cannot be monitored at will by our benevolent government.

You're right. That's why I'm introducing a bill to make it illegal to have a conversation without a certified government agent (or authorized private contractor) present. To improve citizen's security, a rider on the bill will also make it illegal to talk about, write about, or represent in interpretive dance the existence of those agents.

:-/

Ever heard about presumption of innocence? Just because you have physical capability to do something, does not give right to spy on you. Now if there is clear evidence that you are predisposed to do something, then you go to the judge and get a warrant for surveillance. And no, expectation of privacy by using strong encryption is not any kind of evidence, it is matter of personal choice/preference.

Fortunately using encryption now means you have something to hide & thus are gives the government reason to spy.

Another difference: You don't need a gun to perform the most basic of functions securely.

They occupy exactly opposite quadrants on the useful/dangerous axis.

The ability to defend one's self is a basic function. Being dangerous can be useful. Encryption is a tool for guarding privacy, and weapons are tools for guarding against physical threats.

Not having widespread access to firearms in a society doesn't imply that its citizens are defenceless. I.e. some societies skew towards longer-term strategies like reducing desperation or increasing self-control.

There is a cost to having a society saturated with firearms. The vivid, individualistic, but rarely used benefit of personal defence has to be weighed against the boring, common case of excessive violence and escalation due to access to and glamorization of firearms.

It is used to aid in the creation and distribution of child pornography, so the analogy is exact - unless of course you don't view the molestation of those middle schoolers to be an attack on them (as the downvotes seem to indicate).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com