Talk:504: Legal Hacks - Revision history

42.book.addict at 16:31, 5 November 2024

2024-11-05T16:31:01Z

Wilh3lm: 2nd amendment wording go brr

2023-12-01T14:16:52Z

2nd amendment wording go brr

172.70.189.34: add new comment

2023-09-10T15:11:33Z

add new comment

Weatherlawyer at 20:29, 30 January 2015

2015-01-30T20:29:39Z

141.101.80.111 at 10:16, 16 January 2015

2015-01-16T10:16:03Z

Davidy22 at 23:04, 15 January 2015

2015-01-15T23:04:59Z

Pudder at 13:07, 15 January 2015

2015-01-15T13:07:50Z

141.101.80.111 at 11:07, 15 January 2015

2015-01-15T11:07:07Z

141.101.80.111 at 10:25, 15 January 2015

2015-01-15T10:25:42Z

Pudder at 10:13, 15 January 2015

2015-01-15T10:13:22Z

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Does the freedom to speak not also include the freedom to speak privately?
-You don't HAVE to harbour government agents in your home in the USA do you?
+You don't HAVE to harbour government agents in your home in the USA do you? [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 Coming back to this in the modern day it's wild to me how 'crypto' has transformed from meaning 'cryptography' to meaning 'crypto(-graphically secured p2p)-currency'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.189.34|172.70.189.34]] 15:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:16, 1 December 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:I do admit that the wording would be clearer ''today'', but that is a faulty argument here, for two reasons. First, It was written more than 200 years ago, almost 240, in fact. Unless you have a contemporary grammar, you have no right to be a grammar Nazi with the Constitution. Second, The Constitution was deliberately constructed to be vague, so it might last a little longer than the ten years predicted for it. (Talk about an underestimate) Anonymous 02:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)		:I do admit that the wording would be clearer ''today'', but that is a faulty argument here, for two reasons. First, It was written more than 200 years ago, almost 240, in fact. Unless you have a contemporary grammar, you have no right to be a grammar Nazi with the Constitution. Second, The Constitution was deliberately constructed to be vague, so it might last a little longer than the ten years predicted for it. (Talk about an underestimate) Anonymous 02:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I see the wording as "[Becauase of] A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." i.e. the first half explains ''why'' the second half (note that "well-regulated" to them meant "properly trained"). [[User:Wilh3lm\|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm\|talk]]) 14:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

	I still don't quite understand this comic. If crypto is classified as a weapon, then people in the USA are free to use it? Why would they not be free to use it today? What does (politicians'?) complacency have to do with all of this?		I still don't quite understand this comic. If crypto is classified as a weapon, then people in the USA are free to use it? Why would they not be free to use it today? What does (politicians'?) complacency have to do with all of this?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 10 September 2023
Line 29:		Line 29:

	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	Coming back to this in the modern day it's wild to me how 'crypto' has transformed from meaning 'cryptography' to meaning 'crypto(-graphically secured p2p)-currency'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.189.34\|172.70.189.34]] 15:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 30 January 2015
Line 24:		Line 24:

	: I think the explanation is missing Megan's point and its effects for the rest of the world; the course of action which she proposes affects the United States alone. And of course, as I've mentioned, I feel that the final panel is halfway unaccounted for in the explanation. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)		: I think the explanation is missing Megan's point and its effects for the rest of the world; the course of action which she proposes affects the United States alone. And of course, as I've mentioned, I feel that the final panel is halfway unaccounted for in the explanation. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	Does the freedom to speak not also include the freedom to speak privately?
		+	You don't HAVE to harbour government agents in your home in the USA do you?
		+
		+	[[User:Weatherlawyer\| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer\|talk]]) 20:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:16, 16 January 2015
Line 18:		Line 18:

	::: After re-reading your comment and the comic, I think I understand where you are coming from. With encryption classed as a weapon, it cannot be exported, but may be used by citizens within the US. Once no longer classified as a weapon, it can still be used by citizens (i.e. nothing has changed as far as use by US citizens is concerned). The issue comes when if the government tries to prevent use of encryption; if classed as a weapon, you can use the "2nd amendment" defence. My guess on the complacency thing is that possibly politicians become complacent in believing that they have the power to 'control' encryption, and may deny use of it if they wanted. Classed as a weapon, suddenly the constitution stands in their way... Which would bring us back to 'outlawing encryption', though Mr Cameron and the UK in general would be another kettle of fish. Its a good question.--[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)		::: After re-reading your comment and the comic, I think I understand where you are coming from. With encryption classed as a weapon, it cannot be exported, but may be used by citizens within the US. Once no longer classified as a weapon, it can still be used by citizens (i.e. nothing has changed as far as use by US citizens is concerned). The issue comes when if the government tries to prevent use of encryption; if classed as a weapon, you can use the "2nd amendment" defence. My guess on the complacency thing is that possibly politicians become complacent in believing that they have the power to 'control' encryption, and may deny use of it if they wanted. Classed as a weapon, suddenly the constitution stands in their way... Which would bring us back to 'outlawing encryption', though Mr Cameron and the UK in general would be another kettle of fish. Its a good question.--[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	: Re: outlawing cryptography. Governments, including the US one, haven't liked encryption for a long while, as its use will make obtaining evidence much harder if not impossible. The recent talks have been about just outright outlawing it or otherwise weakening it to the point of irrelevance. See for example the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip clipper chip] from 1993, which has a back door specifically built for law enforcement. See also various [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law key disclosure laws].
		+
		+	: But this might be irrelevant. I'm looking at this from a too modern angle; few of those laws existed in the 1990s, which is what the comic is referring to.
		+
		+	: I think the explanation is missing Megan's point and its effects for the rest of the world; the course of action which she proposes affects the United States alone. And of course, as I've mentioned, I feel that the final panel is halfway unaccounted for in the explanation. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 (On second thought, is this comic referring to the continued attempts of outlawing cryptography? e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424 ) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111|141.101.80.111]] 09:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
-:As it says in the comic, the encryption technique was originally classed as a weapon in order to make it illegal to export the technology to other countries. Controlling the use of encryption within the US was going to be difficult due to the First Amendment, but preventing other countries accessing the US developed technology was seen as the most important goal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States here] for more detailed explanation. The comic definately addresses the ongoing legal status of encryption technology, but as far any link to Mr Camerons recently reported attacks on encryption, this comic was published in 2008, so no.
+:As it says in the comic, the encryption technique was originally classed as a weapon in order to make it illegal to export the technology to other countries. Controlling the use of encryption within the US was going to be difficult due to the First Amendment, but preventing other countries accessing the US developed technology was seen as the most important goal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States here] for more detailed explanation. The comic definately addresses the ongoing legal status of encryption technology, but as far any link to Mr Camerons recently reported attacks on encryption, this comic was published in 2008, so no. {{unsigned|Pudder}}
 :: Cameron's was just an example; the attacks have been going on for twenty years, and in most western countries.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 15 January 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:: Anyway, I'm quite aware of US embargoes, but the the right-to-bear-arms amendment doesn't apply to them. I'm still finding the last panel incomprehensible. (I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but) none of my questions have been answered. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 11:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)		:: Anyway, I'm quite aware of US embargoes, but the the right-to-bear-arms amendment doesn't apply to them. I'm still finding the last panel incomprehensible. (I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but) none of my questions have been answered. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 11:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: After re-reading your comment and the comic, I think I understand where you are coming from. With encryption classed as a weapon, it cannot be exported, but may be used by citizens within the US. Once no longer classified as a weapon, it can still be used by citizens (i.e. nothing has changed as far as use by US citizens is concerned). The issue comes when if the government tries to prevent use of encryption; if classed as a weapon, you can use the "2nd amendment" defence. My guess on the complacency thing is that possibly politicians become complacent in believing that they have the power to 'control' encryption, and may deny use of it if they wanted. Classed as a weapon, suddenly the constitution stands in their way... Which would bring us back to 'outlawing encryption', though Mr Cameron and the UK in general would be another kettle of fish. Its a good question.--[[User:Pudder\|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder\|talk]]) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 15 January 2015
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:As it says in the comic, the encryption technique was originally classed as a weapon in order to make it illegal to export the technology to other countries. Controlling the use of encryption within the US was going to be difficult due to the First Amendment, but preventing other countries accessing the US developed technology was seen as the most important goal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States here] for more detailed explanation. The comic definately addresses the ongoing legal status of encryption technology, but as far any link to Mr Camerons recently reported attacks on encryption, this comic was published in 2008, so no.		:As it says in the comic, the encryption technique was originally classed as a weapon in order to make it illegal to export the technology to other countries. Controlling the use of encryption within the US was going to be difficult due to the First Amendment, but preventing other countries accessing the US developed technology was seen as the most important goal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States here] for more detailed explanation. The comic definately addresses the ongoing legal status of encryption technology, but as far any link to Mr Camerons recently reported attacks on encryption, this comic was published in 2008, so no.

−	:: Cameron's was just an example; the attacks have been going on for twenty years, and in most western countries. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 10:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)	+	:: Cameron's was just an example; the attacks have been going on for twenty years, and in most western countries.
		+
		+	:: Anyway, I'm quite aware of US embargoes, but the the right-to-bear-arms amendment doesn't apply to them. I'm still finding the last panel incomprehensible. (I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but) none of my questions have been answered. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 11:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 15 January 2015
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:As it says in the comic, the encryption technique was originally classed as a weapon in order to make it illegal to export the technology to other countries. Controlling the use of encryption within the US was going to be difficult due to the First Amendment, but preventing other countries accessing the US developed technology was seen as the most important goal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States here] for more detailed explanation. The comic definately addresses the ongoing legal status of encryption technology, but as far any link to Mr Camerons recently reported attacks on encryption, this comic was published in 2008, so no.		:As it says in the comic, the encryption technique was originally classed as a weapon in order to make it illegal to export the technology to other countries. Controlling the use of encryption within the US was going to be difficult due to the First Amendment, but preventing other countries accessing the US developed technology was seen as the most important goal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States here] for more detailed explanation. The comic definately addresses the ongoing legal status of encryption technology, but as far any link to Mr Camerons recently reported attacks on encryption, this comic was published in 2008, so no.
		+
		+	:: Cameron's was just an example; the attacks have been going on for twenty years, and in most western countries. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 10:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 15 January 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:

	(On second thought, is this comic referring to the continued attempts of outlawing cryptography? e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424 ) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 09:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)		(On second thought, is this comic referring to the continued attempts of outlawing cryptography? e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424 ) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111\|141.101.80.111]] 09:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	:As it says in the comic, the encryption technique was originally classed as a weapon in order to make it illegal to export the technology to other countries. Controlling the use of encryption within the US was going to be difficult due to the First Amendment, but preventing other countries accessing the US developed technology was seen as the most important goal. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States here] for more detailed explanation. The comic definately addresses the ongoing legal status of encryption technology, but as far any link to Mr Camerons recently reported attacks on encryption, this comic was published in 2008, so no.