Editing 504: Legal Hacks
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
In the comic, [[Megan]] makes the provocative and counter-intuitive point that perhaps the cryptographic community could have best ensured easy access to the RSA technique by *allowing* the government to treat RSA as a weapon, and then, once everyone is certain that RSA is a weapon, invoking the {{w|Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, commonly known as the "{{w|Right to keep and bear arms in the United States|right to bear arms}}" amendment (that is, the right to own and use weapons). In other words, if RSA were a weapon, it would be granted constitutional protections. | In the comic, [[Megan]] makes the provocative and counter-intuitive point that perhaps the cryptographic community could have best ensured easy access to the RSA technique by *allowing* the government to treat RSA as a weapon, and then, once everyone is certain that RSA is a weapon, invoking the {{w|Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, commonly known as the "{{w|Right to keep and bear arms in the United States|right to bear arms}}" amendment (that is, the right to own and use weapons). In other words, if RSA were a weapon, it would be granted constitutional protections. | ||
| β | This interpretation is likely a reference to the | + | This interpretation is likely a reference to the exceptionally strong antipathy towards arms control in the Southern United States (and not a whole lot weaker in most areas of the Northern and Western states). Any attempts made by the government to restrict distribution or ownership of firearms (even those very similar to military-grade weapons) are typically countered by aggressive opposition from pro-gun rights groups such as the {{w|National Rifle Association}}. These political forces have made most gun restrictions politically untenable in the United States. Megan is likely suggesting that classifying RSA as a weapon would gain the crypto community very powerful and unlikely political allies; on the flip side, if the government had already ruled it a weapon that needed to be restricted for national security purposes, it could easily invoke the same clauses that allow it to restrict actual military-grade hardware such as automatic weapons, explosives, and chemical or biological weapons). Megan may also be hinting that, in the future, the US government might try to restrict access to encryption algorithms, making it necessary for cryptographers to defend their rights to them. |
[[Cueball]] is surprised and impressed by this point, and pauses to contemplate Megan's strategy. | [[Cueball]] is surprised and impressed by this point, and pauses to contemplate Megan's strategy. | ||
| β | |||
| β | |||
The title text claims that this is a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, because cryptography (a modern weapon) is analogous to muskets and cannons (the weaponry in use in the 1780s, when the Second Amendment was drafted). As evidence for the analogy, the title text points out that Jefferson would have been a big fan of cryptography, which is plausible, because President {{w|Thomas Jefferson}} (the 3rd President of the United States) was an amateur scientist who enjoyed studying a very wide variety of fields (in fact, he invented the {{w|Jefferson disk}}, an encryption device that was quite advanced for its time). The point is somewhat facetious, because it is hard to imagine a modern technique that Jefferson would ''not'' "be totally into." Also, the mere assertion that an early President would have been a fan of a technique is not very good evidence that the technique would be legally permitted by a particular Amendment. | The title text claims that this is a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, because cryptography (a modern weapon) is analogous to muskets and cannons (the weaponry in use in the 1780s, when the Second Amendment was drafted). As evidence for the analogy, the title text points out that Jefferson would have been a big fan of cryptography, which is plausible, because President {{w|Thomas Jefferson}} (the 3rd President of the United States) was an amateur scientist who enjoyed studying a very wide variety of fields (in fact, he invented the {{w|Jefferson disk}}, an encryption device that was quite advanced for its time). The point is somewhat facetious, because it is hard to imagine a modern technique that Jefferson would ''not'' "be totally into." Also, the mere assertion that an early President would have been a fan of a technique is not very good evidence that the technique would be legally permitted by a particular Amendment. | ||
