"dangerous munitions"
May 13, 2016 4:37 PM Subscribe
The US Munitions List is like a Bond villain shopping list.
posted by peeedro at 4:57 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 4:57 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Looks like we'll have to ban pens and paper then, because one-time pads are still as scary-unbreakable as scary-unbreakable gets when it comes to crypto.
posted by Strange Interlude at 5:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Strange Interlude at 5:35 PM on May 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Bearable? Literally! My phone could be a holster for concealed weapons.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 6:05 PM on May 13, 2016
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 6:05 PM on May 13, 2016
I've been thinking about this for a really long time (before the xkcd, too). I'm really interested to see where this thread goes because I think one way to possibly "save" crypto (for lack of a better way to phrase this) would be to convince the NRA and second amendment champions that if they really believe the right to bear arms is to be able to overthrow the government (which should be in a constant state of fear of the citizenry) at any moment that they're going to need to arm themselves with the ability to communicate securely.
(I also think this is crazy. Sorta.)
posted by Brian Puccio at 6:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
(I also think this is crazy. Sorta.)
posted by Brian Puccio at 6:44 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Looks like we'll have to ban pens and paper then, because one-time pads are still as scary-unbreakable as scary-unbreakable gets when it comes to crypto.
They'd only have to confiscate your statistically-perfect random number generator.
posted by neckro23 at 7:05 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
They'd only have to confiscate your statistically-perfect random number generator.
posted by neckro23 at 7:05 PM on May 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
They'd only have to confiscate your statistically-perfect random number generator.
And so it was, that on October 4, 2019, the United States Congress outlawed the sun.
posted by officer_fred at 7:18 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
And so it was, that on October 4, 2019, the United States Congress outlawed the sun.
posted by officer_fred at 7:18 PM on May 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, no.
Look at that munition list... the 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to have an openly carried flamethrower in an urban environment... the 2nd amendment does not allow carte blanche weapon possessing rights.
No, I firmly believe that seeing code as expressive content and protecting crypto under the 1st amendment is the key legal strategy to allow crypto.
And when I hear things like this "At SXSW this year, President Obama asserted that technologies like strong encryption "can empower folks who are very dangerous to spread dangerous messages,”" I realize how much I don't like Obama (yeah, he's done some great things, I know, lets not get into that). Look, the fucking federalist papers were dangerous messages. The first amendment is a key building block for a successful democracy.
posted by el io at 7:34 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Look at that munition list... the 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to have an openly carried flamethrower in an urban environment... the 2nd amendment does not allow carte blanche weapon possessing rights.
No, I firmly believe that seeing code as expressive content and protecting crypto under the 1st amendment is the key legal strategy to allow crypto.
And when I hear things like this "At SXSW this year, President Obama asserted that technologies like strong encryption "can empower folks who are very dangerous to spread dangerous messages,”" I realize how much I don't like Obama (yeah, he's done some great things, I know, lets not get into that). Look, the fucking federalist papers were dangerous messages. The first amendment is a key building block for a successful democracy.
posted by el io at 7:34 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Oh, also not impressed at the journalism displayed there.
The author interviewed (or quoted) a single lawyer, and they weren't a technology lawyer. There are a *lot* of lawyers that have experience dealing with crypto issues, and talking with one of those lawyers would have added a ton of credibility to the highly speculative article.
'"It's an interesting argument," says Mike McLively, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and a Second Amendment expert. "You can make the case, certainly."'
That's the legal equivalent of saying nothing. Lawyers are literally taught to argue all sides of an argument, and the one lawyer she spoke to didn't sound like he was convinced.
posted by el io at 7:40 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
The author interviewed (or quoted) a single lawyer, and they weren't a technology lawyer. There are a *lot* of lawyers that have experience dealing with crypto issues, and talking with one of those lawyers would have added a ton of credibility to the highly speculative article.
'"It's an interesting argument," says Mike McLively, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and a Second Amendment expert. "You can make the case, certainly."'
That's the legal equivalent of saying nothing. Lawyers are literally taught to argue all sides of an argument, and the one lawyer she spoke to didn't sound like he was convinced.
posted by el io at 7:40 PM on May 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Even "traditional firearms" aren't automatically exempt, there are all sorts of wrinkles. The law even has to carve out a special exception for antique muzzle loading rifles lest they be lumped into the "destructive device" category with grenades.
And AFAIK no court has ruled that cryptography is a munition, rather it's protected First Amendment speech, so I don't think this argument will fly. (Also we still have the 4th Amendment, right? Is that still a thing?)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:12 PM on May 13, 2016
And AFAIK no court has ruled that cryptography is a munition, rather it's protected First Amendment speech, so I don't think this argument will fly. (Also we still have the 4th Amendment, right? Is that still a thing?)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:12 PM on May 13, 2016
Look at that munition list... the 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to have an openly carried flamethrower in an urban environment... the 2nd amendment does not allow carte blanche weapon possessing rights.
I get that your view is basically settled law 80 years later, but the impression I got from US v Miller was not that prohibiting military grade weapons was kosher with the 2nd amendment, but that nobody demonstrated the military would have used the sawedoff shotgun in question, because the defense failed to show up for the hearings.
Which I find kind of interesting, because on that grounds the 'smart guns' laws being shopped around would probably be held as unconstitutional. I'm told that most military vehicles don't have keys, and that even though we told the Air Force to set secret launch codes, they thought better of it and set them to 000000. I don't imagine the brass would be excited to lock guns to very specific and possibly very dead soldiers.
As for whether encryption counts as an arm, while it's good to see a variety of reasons to support it, I wouldn't rely on the 2nd amendment alone.
posted by pwnguin at 8:18 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get that your view is basically settled law 80 years later, but the impression I got from US v Miller was not that prohibiting military grade weapons was kosher with the 2nd amendment, but that nobody demonstrated the military would have used the sawedoff shotgun in question, because the defense failed to show up for the hearings.
Which I find kind of interesting, because on that grounds the 'smart guns' laws being shopped around would probably be held as unconstitutional. I'm told that most military vehicles don't have keys, and that even though we told the Air Force to set secret launch codes, they thought better of it and set them to 000000. I don't imagine the brass would be excited to lock guns to very specific and possibly very dead soldiers.
As for whether encryption counts as an arm, while it's good to see a variety of reasons to support it, I wouldn't rely on the 2nd amendment alone.
posted by pwnguin at 8:18 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
the 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to have an openly carried flamethrower in an urban environmentSomething does, though, because I have two of them, and I don't just open carry them in an urban environment, I set them off in an urban environment and burn things with them, on a fairly frequent basis. Sometimes it's to put on a show for dinner guests, other times it's just because I'm drunk or high and feel like causing some trouble. The police have showed up and the fire department has been called but they don't care and I've gotten in zero actual trouble for it. Probably because I'm white.
I'm told that most military vehicles don't have keysThe deuce-and-a-half I use as a camper sure doesn't. The previous owner welded a chain onto the floor so you can loop it through the steering wheel and padlock it when you don't want anyone running off with it. Makes sense; these vehicles were designed to live on military bases, and if you have people sneaking onto your base and stealing your trucks, well, you've got bigger problems.
posted by crotchety old git at 8:41 PM on May 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Back when Phil Zimmerman was fighting with the US Government over PGP, me and my 2600 meeting attending friends made it a point to wear RSA encryption munitions tee shirts so that we could make funny geek jokes about it. The back of the shirt had a giant VOID stamp over the first two (maybe three) Constitutional amendments. I remember at the time joking that the US was screwing itself over by classifying encryption as a munition because they might run afoul of Amendment II, but we felt much more secure about encryption being protected by free speech.
posted by xyzzy at 3:39 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by xyzzy at 3:39 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The second amendment isnt the right (or rather the only) one relevant. The third makes a good atgument for a very strong right to privacy.
posted by bartonlong at 10:14 AM on May 14, 2016
posted by bartonlong at 10:14 AM on May 14, 2016
Remember when this was skirted by publishing the source code to PGP in a paper book? I like to imagine the top half of trollface.jpg on the bottom of the last page of that book.
posted by ostranenie at 11:16 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ostranenie at 11:16 AM on May 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was about to say I picked up a copy of this book at a secondhand place once, but actually it was "Cracking DES" which is a similar "Scan the book" style of thing. Not a brilliant read, but an interesting slice of history.
posted by nickzoic at 3:13 AM on May 15, 2016
posted by nickzoic at 3:13 AM on May 15, 2016
I'm sorry, but that's just a magical unicorn manure reading of the second amendment, for your own convenience, entirely unconnected to consensus reality. Whatever we can say about the second amendment, I'm sure, I'm quite sure, it was written to be about personal-scale firearms. Not lasers, not quantum camouflage, not ICBMs, not flamethrowers or tachyon bombs or robotic ninja personal security guards, and not computer programs. The Second Amendment is trouble enough to people who want to see the continued existence of civil society without stretching it so out-of-shape as to cover (whatever your personal hobbyhorse is.)
posted by newdaddy at 6:29 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by newdaddy at 6:29 AM on May 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
And I say this, myself being entirely in favor of people writing and using their own encryption, without interference from the government. The amendment you're reaching for here is the First, not the Second.
The novel with the PGP page in it is Cryptonomicon.
posted by newdaddy at 6:34 AM on May 15, 2016
The novel with the PGP page in it is Cryptonomicon.
posted by newdaddy at 6:34 AM on May 15, 2016
(Does /Cryptonomicon/ really have a PGP page? I could have sworn it was a brief description of a cryptosystem "Pontifex" amenable to implementation with playing cards.)
posted by golwengaud at 7:59 AM on May 15, 2016
posted by golwengaud at 7:59 AM on May 15, 2016
Whatever we can say about the second amendment, I'm sure, I'm quite sure, it was written to be about personal-scale firearms. Not lasers, not quantum camouflage, not ICBMs, not flamethrowers or tachyon bombs or robotic ninja personal security guards, and not computer programs.
The consensus view on the second amendment among gun right supporters and proponents is that it applies to the arms and equipment a member of the militia (unorganized or organized) could be reasonably expected to show up with for a muster-personal weapons such as pistol, rifles, bayonets, a basic load of ammunition, etc. NOT things that would be issued to troops for actual combat-crew served weapons, explosives, advanced weapons systems (such as computers...).
As I said above, the third amendment actually makes a pretty good case for privacy (in this case in teh form of encryption) from government surveillance and an argument could be made that the fourth also supports it (encryption could be viewed as a 'lock' that establishes the expectation of privacy for personal communication).
posted by bartonlong at 10:31 AM on May 15, 2016
The consensus view on the second amendment among gun right supporters and proponents is that it applies to the arms and equipment a member of the militia (unorganized or organized) could be reasonably expected to show up with for a muster-personal weapons such as pistol, rifles, bayonets, a basic load of ammunition, etc. NOT things that would be issued to troops for actual combat-crew served weapons, explosives, advanced weapons systems (such as computers...).
As I said above, the third amendment actually makes a pretty good case for privacy (in this case in teh form of encryption) from government surveillance and an argument could be made that the fourth also supports it (encryption could be viewed as a 'lock' that establishes the expectation of privacy for personal communication).
posted by bartonlong at 10:31 AM on May 15, 2016
I like the moxy behind this, but I have a hard time redefining violence as something that can be done to/with personal data. I think without that, this holds no water.
posted by butterstick at 10:41 AM on May 15, 2016
posted by butterstick at 10:41 AM on May 15, 2016
The consensus view on the second amendment among gun right supporters and proponents is that it applies to the arms and equipment a member of the militia (unorganized or organized) could be reasonably expected to show up with for a muster-personal weapons such as pistol, rifles, bayonets, a basic load of ammunition, etc.
That seems entirely subjective, unless they're going by what a conventional militia was when the amendment was written. Maybe in twenty years every militia will be full of drones with heat vision. And who's defining what a militia can carry today?
posted by newdaddy at 4:04 PM on May 15, 2016
That seems entirely subjective, unless they're going by what a conventional militia was when the amendment was written. Maybe in twenty years every militia will be full of drones with heat vision. And who's defining what a militia can carry today?
posted by newdaddy at 4:04 PM on May 15, 2016
I don't want this to spin off into a second amendment fight. I will just say, I don't believe it's explicit in the text that anything a militia might carry is protected, and I don't think it's in the best interests of either gun rights advocates or crypto enthusiasts that that argument be used.
posted by newdaddy at 4:07 PM on May 15, 2016
posted by newdaddy at 4:07 PM on May 15, 2016
I don't want this to spin off into a second amendment fight. I will just say, I don't believe it's explicit in the text that anything a militia might carry is protected, and I don't think it's in the best interests of either gun rights advocates or crypto enthusiasts that that argument be used.
I think we agree on this point at least.
posted by bartonlong at 9:56 AM on May 16, 2016
I think we agree on this point at least.
posted by bartonlong at 9:56 AM on May 16, 2016
« Older An opera for children and those who like children | Women in flat shoes still able to do job shock! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by macrael at 4:43 PM on May 13, 2016 [8 favorites]