People who support the right to have a gun are so inconsistent on this issue, including Donald Trump (who is mentioned in the article).
So let me get this straight, you think that people should have the right to carry a human-killing weapon to "protect themselves", but you don't think they should use strong encryption to protect themselves and their communications?
Another point of inconsistency is in regards to the argument that "even if you ban guns, criminals will still use them" (just like they did in Paris - twice). So if guns can be smuggled into a country where personal weapons are banned, you believe that the government will be able to stop code from passing the border?
The 2nd amendment defenders, or at least the people claiming they are 2nd amendment defenders, should be just as fanatical about defending encryption and privacy as they are about guns, because both can use the exact same arguments.
You can't just defend one and attack the other. Yet, what I'm noticing is exactly that. Most of the "right to own a gun" defenders seem to support attacks on privacy, mass surveillance, and so on.
And that's not even going into the issue that guns' sole purpose is to "kill stuff" (whether as the aggressor or the defender), while encryption is used much more for actually good or neutral stuff, not just to protect criminals. That's only a small part of its use.
So guns, and weapons in general, are much more dangerous than encryption is. So if you actually defend those human-killing tools (yes, I know, it's "only for protection"), then surely you should have many more reasons to defend encryption, not fewer.
4 comments
[ 7.2 ms ] story [ 26.8 ms ] threadSo let me get this straight, you think that people should have the right to carry a human-killing weapon to "protect themselves", but you don't think they should use strong encryption to protect themselves and their communications?
Another point of inconsistency is in regards to the argument that "even if you ban guns, criminals will still use them" (just like they did in Paris - twice). So if guns can be smuggled into a country where personal weapons are banned, you believe that the government will be able to stop code from passing the border?
The 2nd amendment defenders, or at least the people claiming they are 2nd amendment defenders, should be just as fanatical about defending encryption and privacy as they are about guns, because both can use the exact same arguments.
You can't just defend one and attack the other. Yet, what I'm noticing is exactly that. Most of the "right to own a gun" defenders seem to support attacks on privacy, mass surveillance, and so on.
And that's not even going into the issue that guns' sole purpose is to "kill stuff" (whether as the aggressor or the defender), while encryption is used much more for actually good or neutral stuff, not just to protect criminals. That's only a small part of its use.
So guns, and weapons in general, are much more dangerous than encryption is. So if you actually defend those human-killing tools (yes, I know, it's "only for protection"), then surely you should have many more reasons to defend encryption, not fewer.