The Right to Keep and Bear, "Arms"

Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
We all know that the Second Amendment does not limit us to muskets, as some on the left would like to argue. The right is spelled out in broad terms to accommodate the ongoing development of new arms, necessary to maintain a free state. I would wager that most people here believe that the NFA and FOPA have over-regulated this right.

I was making the point that arms are still necessary to defend our freedom, now more than ever, and that the argument that armed civilian militias could never compete with the Army is as fallacious as it has always been. He then said something which struck me. I can't find the exact wording but it was to the effect of, "Most second amendment advocates care about holding on to things which go 'BANG' and not actually defending liberty. There is no acknowledgement from 2A advocates that the next battlefield will likely be cyber and no movement on retaining their rights to cyber arms."

This isn't a crazy position. The government has listed encryption as a munition before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States I often make the point that we have seen how having the bigger more advanced military does not spell automatic victory a lot in recent years, but another thing we have seen is that electronic communications and encryption are critical assets in these types of fights.

The government is trying to cripple our crypto which not only puts our information at risk and erodes our Second Amendment rights, but it also hampers tech companies ability to compete in the global market.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3087615/encryption/its-time-to-lock-the-door-on-backdoors.html

What do you think? Should we be paying more attention to the government's attempts to install backdoors in our crypto, restrict access to hacking tools, spy on our communications, etc? The NRA is an industry group which has, until now, mostly covered our Right to Keep and Bear Arms...but maybe an organization with much broader scope is needed?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
3,406
Likes
819
Location
Help I'm steppin' into the twilight zone
Interesting thoughts. I think the government needs to be reigned in pretty much across the board. Things like the Patriot Act and limiting our ability to communicate without govt interference need to be done away with.

Our military is huge and advanced. If the need ever arose for citizens to confront it we would need to be able to communicate quickly and privately. It's not like the revolution where Paul Revere could outrun the British on horseback and warn everyone. If we ever needed to be warned and coordinate efforts we would certainly need private electronic communications.

So short answer, yes, we should be paying a lot of attention to this stuff. I have heard some groups are but I don't know anything about it myself.
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
9,011
Likes
1,394
Location
in a building
Yes. I've been freaking out about this sort of thing since the Patriot Act. He makes a great point about the 2nd amendment implications of crypto.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,284
Likes
32,915
We all know that the Second Amendment does not limit us to muskets, as some on the left would like to argue. The right is spelled out in broad terms to accommodate the ongoing development of new arms, necessary to maintain a free state. I would wager that most people here believe that the NFA and FOPA have over-regulated this right.

I was making the point that arms are still necessary to defend our freedom, now more than ever, and that the argument that armed civilian militias could never compete with the Army is as fallacious as it has always been. He then said something which struck me. I can't find the exact wording but it was to the effect of, "Most second amendment advocates care about holding on to things which go 'BANG' and not actually defending liberty. There is no acknowledgement from 2A advocates that the next battlefield will likely be cyber and no movement on retaining their rights to cyber arms."

This isn't a crazy position. The government has listed encryption as a munition before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States I often make the point that we have seen how having the bigger more advanced military does not spell automatic victory a lot in recent years, but another thing we have seen is that electronic communications and encryption are critical assets in these types of fights.

The government is trying to cripple our crypto which not only puts our information at risk and erodes our Second Amendment rights, but it also hampers tech companies ability to compete in the global market.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3087615/encryption/its-time-to-lock-the-door-on-backdoors.html

What do you think? Should we be paying more attention to the government's attempts to install backdoors in our crypto, restrict access to hacking tools, spy on our communications, etc? The NRA is an industry group which has, until now, mostly covered our Right to Keep and Bear Arms...but maybe an organization with much broader scope is needed?
I think part of the problem with technology is it is a difficult sell to the masses in terms of making them concerned about it. To the masses technology is still just a black box. For example the EFF has been fighting this kind of garbage for years but the only people that really know anything about it are the people who read wired magazine or similar publications/etc. The whole "electronic privacy suite" if you want to call that is not understood very well by the masses. They don't really understand the hazards that things like unregulated surveillance, etc, present. If it wasn't for certain industry types running interference, clinton would have passed that "clipper chip" bullshit. As it is a bunch of other garbage got passed like DMCA, NET act, etc. I mean, look at all the conservative nipplehead ****stick retard shitbirds that call Edward Snowden a traitor, and that's all you need to know about how much the public really doesn't have a clue about what is going on. It's far deeper, and far worse than it is with guns. At least with guns we have probably 10-20 million gun owners that actually understand in a serious way and probably many million more that understand generically. The same can't be said for electronic privacy issues whether computer based or in real life (eg, distributed surveillance, by cameras, ALPR systems, etc. ).

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
9,011
Likes
1,394
Location
in a building
I think part of the problem with technology is it is a difficult sell to the masses in terms of making them concerned about it. To the masses technology is still just a black box. For example the EFF has been fighting this kind of garbage for years but the only people that really know anything about it are the people who read wired magazine or similar publications/etc. The whole "electronic privacy suite" if you want to call that is not understood very well by the masses. They don't really understand the hazards that things like unregulated surveillance, etc, present. If it wasn't for certain industry types running interference, clinton would have passed that "clipper chip" bullshit. As it is a bunch of other garbage got passed like DMCA, NET act, etc. I mean, look at all the conservative nipplehead ****stick retard shitbirds that call Edward Snowden a traitor, and that's all you need to know about how much the public really doesn't have a clue about what is going on. It's far deeper, and far worse than it is with guns. At least with guns we have probably 10-20 million gun owners that actually understand in a serious way and probably many million more that understand generically. The same can't be said for electronic privacy issues whether computer based or in real life (eg, distributed surveillance, by cameras, ALPR systems, etc. ).

-Mike

This is a good point. I've tried to explain some of the problems with these surveillance systems to relatives, and usually it comes down to some form of "Hey, if you aren't doing anything wrong why are you worried?". They just don't get it.
 

new guy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
23,594
Likes
21,030
I don't think being under the ITAR umbrella means that encryption software = arms, it just means that it's export-controlled technology. Not sure that 2A has anything to do with this.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
I think part of the problem with technology is it is a difficult sell to the masses in terms of making them concerned about it. To the masses technology is still just a black box. For example the EFF has been fighting this kind of garbage for years but the only people that really know anything about it are the people who read wired magazine or similar publications/etc. The whole "electronic privacy suite" if you want to call that is not understood very well by the masses. They don't really understand the hazards that things like unregulated surveillance, etc, present. If it wasn't for certain industry types running interference, clinton would have passed that "clipper chip" bullshit. As it is a bunch of other garbage got passed like DMCA, NET act, etc. I mean, look at all the conservative nipplehead ****stick retard shitbirds that call Edward Snowden a traitor, and that's all you need to know about how much the public really doesn't have a clue about what is going on. It's far deeper, and far worse than it is with guns. At least with guns we have probably 10-20 million gun owners that actually understand in a serious way and probably many million more that understand generically. The same can't be said for electronic privacy issues whether computer based or in real life (eg, distributed surveillance, by cameras, ALPR systems, etc. ).

-Mike
Totally agree with all of this 100%. It's very unfortunate that so few people understand it.

I think it would make sense for gun owners to try to at least get a grip on something like how to use PGP, which isn't an insurmountable task. There should be easier ways of using crypto out there too...but that's another discussion. As Carl says, private communications would be essential in any kind of conflict scenario.

Another thing I was thinking about was that making this a 2A issue might make restriction more difficult and might even create some new allies.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
I don't think being under the ITAR umbrella means that encryption software = arms, it just means that it's export-controlled technology. Not sure that 2A has anything to do with this.
It was literally listed on the U.S. Munitions List. At the time, I thought that was pretty ridiculous. In retrospect, that might not be such a bad thing. If it is, in fact, a, "munition" then the government's ability to restrict it is tempered by the 2A. It is very, very easy to make the argument that this is a very common, "munition" in every day use by millions or even approaching billions of people.

I guess my point is...it may not seem like a 2a issue, but the government set a precedent that would allow it to be considered that way and it could be to our advantage to go for that.

Doing that would impact tech companies too, though.
 

new guy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
23,594
Likes
21,030
It was literally listed on the U.S. Munitions List. At the time, I thought that was pretty ridiculous. In retrospect, that might not be such a bad thing. If it is, in fact, a, "munition" then the government's ability to restrict it is tempered by the 2A. It is very, very easy to make the argument that this is a very common, "munition" in every day use by millions or even approaching billions of people.

I guess my point is...it may not seem like a 2a issue, but the government set a precedent that would allow it to be considered that way and it could be to our advantage to go for that.

Doing that would impact tech companies too, though.
Is a munition the same thing as an arm? Honest question - I don't know.

It's an interesting angle. Is the right to keep and bear encryption software infringed if the government has a backdoor? The backdoor obviously undermines its effectiveness (against the government), but could you make the case that body armor on government agents similarly undermines the effectiveness of conventional arms (against the government)? I guess a better hypothetical comparison would be a smart gun that could be disabled by the government, if such a thing existed. But still, is being able to disable something the same as infringing the right of the person to keep it in the first place?
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
34,111
Likes
21,287
right-to-bear-arms.jpg

Sorry, now that Trump is in, we can have some fun with this previously deadly serious topic! Right to keep Bear arms.
[smile]
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
33,676
Likes
17,023
Location
PREM
The second amendment is an absolute ban on any government or private party infringement of your right to keep and bear arms.

If encryption is a munition then it is covered by that.

There is no language limiting the scope, as there IS with the first amendment.
 

Chris

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
10,675
Likes
1,808
Location
Just east of Zone 9, but in Worcester County.
The problem with most people today is that they have no idea what "freedom" really is.

The original founders did not include a bill of rights because they felt it was "self-evident".

That everyone today seems to feel a need to tie something with an enumerated right is the problem.

Our most important amendment is the 10th. Unless the power is specifically given to government by the Constitution, it is a right of the people. PERIOD.

We don't need to consider electronic communications as arms. We don't need to jump through hoops to prove our rights at all. If the power was not explicitly given, it is our right.

Sadly, far too many have forgotten that simple fact.
 
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
9,011
Likes
1,394
Location
in a building
The problem with most people today is that they have no idea what "freedom" really is.

The original founders did not include a bill of rights because they felt it was "self-evident".

That everyone today seems to feel a need to tie something with an enumerated right is the problem.

Our most important amendment is the 10th. Unless the power is specifically given to government by the Constitution, it is a right of the people. PERIOD.

We don't need to consider electronic communications as arms. We don't need to jump through hoops to prove our rights at all. If the power was not explicitly given, it is our right.

Sadly, far too many have forgotten that simple fact.
This is a technicality, but the tenth amendment leaves things to the people or the states. If that is your only protection, a state like MA can do whatever they want on X topic not covered in the Constitution. I'm not saying this is bad, just stating that the Constitution as originally written limited the feds mostly, and the states not much.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
 

CosmicIrony

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
3,826
Likes
573
Location
Northborough, MA
What do you think? Should we be paying more attention to the government's attempts to install backdoors in our crypto, restrict access to hacking tools, spy on our communications, etc? The NRA is an industry group which has, until now, mostly covered our Right to Keep and Bear Arms...but maybe an organization with much broader scope is needed?
I think this is absolutely on the right track. No government-mandated backdoors, no forcing companies to hand over encryption keys, etc. In my work I have argued strongly for system designs that enable companies (and individuals) to store their data securely with no ability for the service provider to compromise that customer's security.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation has been fighting this creeping encroachment on liberty for quite a while, but the government desire to control is relentless.
 

new guy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
23,594
Likes
21,030
Until the people change the government.
Hear, hear.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this is absolutely on the right track. No government-mandated backdoors, no forcing companies to hand over encryption keys, etc. In my work I have argued strongly for system designs that enable companies (and individuals) to store their data securely with no ability for the service provider to compromise that customer's security.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation has been fighting this creeping encroachment on liberty for quite a while, but the government desire to control is relentless.
And it looks like things will be getting worse under a Trump presidency before they can get better.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
Is a munition the same thing as an arm? Honest question - I don't know.
I had the exact same question.

Listed as munitions, though, were both guns and ammunition. I don't think it is still listed as such, but the government doing that sets a precedent.

It's an interesting angle. Is the right to keep and bear encryption software infringed if the government has a backdoor? The backdoor obviously undermines its effectiveness (against the government), but could you make the case that body armor on government agents similarly undermines the effectiveness of conventional arms (against the government)? I guess a better hypothetical comparison would be a smart gun that could be disabled by the government, if such a thing existed. But still, is being able to disable something the same as infringing the right of the person to keep it in the first place?
Really interesting way to look at it!

I think the body armor thing is probably the best example since it reduces the effectiveness of guns/bullets in all cases. Crypto is the same way - the there is a back door for the government, it reduces the security offered to everyone, because no back door goes undiscovered forever.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
I think this is absolutely on the right track. No government-mandated backdoors, no forcing companies to hand over encryption keys, etc. In my work I have argued strongly for system designs that enable companies (and individuals) to store their data securely with no ability for the service provider to compromise that customer's security.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation has been fighting this creeping encroachment on liberty for quite a while, but the government desire to control is relentless.
I should also give a nod to the EFF. I have definitely followed them for a very, very long time as well.

It's really interesting that there aren't that many systems that incorporate strong crypto and protection for users' information. We keep getting, "sort of" versions, but it doesn't seem like there has been a concerted, well resourced effort to develop secure means of communication for the everyman. I was hoping that this would happen in the post-Snowden era, when the reasons the average person should care about this kind of peaked, but it still hasn't happened.

We basically need the facebook or the gmail of secure communications.
 

JRLB

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
538
Likes
406
It's not just the govt. Marketing companies, Facebook, Amazon are all building profiles based on sites we visit, things we read, products we look at. Now we have Alexa, google home assistant etc listening in. There is a major potential for abuse. Privacy is over.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
3,406
Likes
819
Location
Help I'm steppin' into the twilight zone
But body armor on a government agent isn't infringing on anyone's privacy, mandatory back doors that allow the govt to look at your private communications is.

Smart guns that can be disabled absolutely infringes on 2a. That would give the govt the power to shut down all opposition with the click of a button. I would imagine that could be hacked to disable the ability to disable but that would be a crime where there should be no need for it.
 

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
19,256
Likes
15,095
Location
Back from Motherland
I would wager that most people here believe that the NFA and FOPA have over-regulated this right.
The word that you are looking for is INFRINGE.


Cyber-shmiber, it boils down to physical hurt, death. You can make someone butthurt or tickle them with bytes, but you need lead with some velocity to really make a point, ultimately. There are ways to encrypt things if you look beyond whatever faggotry is available for download, free, like with physical arms, you need to put some sweat and time to learn how to use that effectively.
 
Top Bottom