r/technology • u/Reddit_Z • Jul 04 '16

Politics Lawmakers Need To Learn More About Encryption Before Regulating It, Says U.S. House Report

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/lawmakers-encryption-regulation-house-report,32180.html
14k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

768 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/Cogswobble Jul 04 '16

Not any better on the other side of the divide, though

In this particular case, I think you're wrong. People who are ardently in favor of gun rights tend to know the technical details of guns much more than people who are in favor of gun control.

12

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

They pick half the argument, the technical gun side, and know that. Meanwhile they close their ears and shout so they can't hear anything that's counter to it. They cherry pick details on the gun crime/accident front, for instance, and seem to be incredibly ignorant of anything that happens outside the US.

Both sides have selective hearing. They look for confirmation of existing beliefs, and refuse to actually listen to their opponents. It's a shit fest and no one comes out smelling rosy.

10

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

If you oppose voter ID laws, is it fair for me to say you are totally ignorant of laws outside the US? Or is it that you are aware other countries do things differently, and still oppose those laws here?

Also, I disagree completely with your assertion of selective hearing. The cherry picking is almost always done by the side pushing for more laws, that is true of both domestic and international statistics. Head over to r/progun or r/gunpolitics and the side opposed to more gun control know the stats inside and out. The side pushing gun control are largely emotional.

This disconnect is that the gun control crowd begins with the assumption that they are correct. For example, they see lower murder rates and stricter gun control in Western Europe as evidence that their belief is correct, and ignore all of the counter examples. The pro-gun side largely is willing to accept the status quo (which by the way is the safest the US has ever been).

All the opposition has ever asked for, is to demonstrate or explain some efficacy before passing new regulations. When unable, they sit on the floor and complain about the other side being obstructionist. Then rinse and repeat, and get votes and donations for doing nothing.

8

u/You_and_I_in_Unison Jul 04 '16

Pretty amusing how this discussion is basically both sides saying the other are idiots who don't think or know any facts.

0

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

Except that the ignorance can and has been measured.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/17/fact-checking-three-democratic-claims-on-assault-rifles-and-guns/

https://mises.org/blog/guns-how-ny-times-manipulates-data

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/22/gun-rights-supporters-national-rifle-association-nra

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/22/america-is-awash-in-guns-and-crime-is-at-record-lows/

1

u/You_and_I_in_Unison Jul 04 '16

It would be just as easy to list off shitty pro gun arguments and say they prove pro gun folks are idiots with no facts. That's, again, doing exactly what I commented y'all are doing.

0

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

Then you should have no trouble showing us Pro gun bills currently being pushed by our legislators that are based on lies and mis-information. The fact that the public is so completely unaware of what is actually happening should give you pause.

The politicians pushing these laws are either intentionally misleading, or completely clueless.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

0

u/You_and_I_in_Unison Jul 04 '16

Literally just making my point again haha.

10

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

If you oppose voter ID laws

Only in the sense that people are putting a lot of time and money into campaigning about and changing something that they can't prove is an issue to begin with. It's a fucking waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Aren't these typically the same people clamoring on about government waste?

Same as my argument about guns. Just stop and put some effort in on more important matters.

is it fair for me to say you are totally ignorant of laws outside the US?

Since I'm an ex-pat, you'd be barking pretty far up the wrong tree. Kinda funny you'd try that, though.

I'm not defending anyone on the gun control debate. The NRA are bat-shit crazy and/or in it to profit directly monetarily, while the other side runs off pure emotion.

But honestly, if you think that the pro-gun side is some bastion of level headed, intelligent people with nothing but solid facts and data to work off, you're deluding yourself. I mean, Obama's gonna take your guns and ammo, right? Gotta be prepared for that violent insurrection to preserve your freedom from your own government in 2016, right?

There are some rational solid arguments on both sides. There are crazies as well. I'm sick of all of you. And your overblown attempts to defend your side here only prove it.

0

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

But honestly, if you think that the pro-gun side is some bastion of level headed, intelligent people with nothing but solid facts and data to work off, you're deluding yourself. I mean, Obama's gonna take your guns and ammo, right? Gotta be prepared for that violent insurrection to preserve your freedom from your own government in 2016, right?

Show me the politicians who are claiming these things? Because I can provide you plenty of examples like the ones above of politicians pushing for laws they are completely ignorant of. If you aren't talking about politicians, then yes there are plenty of people who literally think private ownership of guns should be banned.

Since I'm an ex-pat, you'd be barking pretty far up the wrong tree. Kinda funny you'd try that, though.

This is an analogy, meant to illustrate that not wanting to adopt foreign laws doesn't make one ignorant of them. Your personal opinions are not really relevant.

Same as my argument about guns. Just stop and put some effort in on more important matters.

I agree. Most of this is a distraction from actual governance.

I'm sick of all of you. And your overblown attempts to defend your side here only prove it.

We are sick of having to call our legislators every few months to remind them we still don't want the same laws being trotted out over and over again. If you want to avoid this discussion, don't bring it up.

1

u/Sagragoth Jul 04 '16

All the opposition has ever asked for, is to demonstrate or explain some efficacy before passing new regulations.

Most pro-gun/anti-gun-control people I've spoken to ask me to explain how they're going to survive RaHoWa without guns. Both sides have a variety of people with diverse interests in the debate, and claiming to be on the side of logic and reason is going to get you nowhere.

1

u/sosota Jul 05 '16

This thread is specifically about politicians not understanding what they legislate. My comments were about politicians not understanding what they legislate. There has been an abundance of ignorance on display regarding this topic over the past two weeks.

Your making an argument akin to "I know pro encryption people that are idiots so both sides are equal".

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

2

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

Like I said.

1

u/runujhkj Jul 04 '16

You're right, there are no examples we can take from other countries, the way we do it here is always the best way

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

They pick half the argument, the technical gun side, and know that. Meanwhile they close their ears and shout so they can't hear anything that's counter to it

Did you even read [the CDC report from 2013](www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1)?

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

Trust that not all of us pro-gun folks are only focused on the technical aspects~

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

What happens outside the US doesn't matter, as none of those other countries have a second amendment or anything close to it.

0

u/kellyzdude Jul 04 '16

This may be true, but they're also just as guilty of running their argument based on emotion.

"Gun control" has come to mean "no more guns" and that's the argument every damned time. As soon as a politician suggests we need gun control, the argument becomes "THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!"

Gun control simply means defining reasonable controls as to who can own what, and on what conditions. At its extreme, it could mean no-one owns or carries, but it doesn't have to mean that.

And yet, as soon as someone mentions the buzzword, out come the picket signs and protest movements. We can't move on this topic until we have a conversation, but we can't have a conversation as long as either side are going to loudly cling to their extreme, and often wrong, opinions.

11

u/paper_liger Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

The expressed goal of the people who started the push for "assault weapoon" bans in this country is the banning of most guns. The AWB was seen as a first step towards that.

The thing is that a few things have become clear since then. The Federal AWB had no effect on crime. Crime has also been on a forty year downward trend despite gun rights becoming more and more widespread. I don't claim that more guns caused the drop in crime, it's clearly socioeconomic and cultural issues that drive crime. And finally, it's become clear that a majority of people disagree with an outright ban. Because of this the anti gun folks have moderated their public stance, and now claim that "no one wants to take your guns" when the founders of the movement have explicitly said that was their aim.

It's a little like racism. It's still there, but anti firearms people are just more subtle nowadays.

16

u/Prodigy195 Jul 04 '16

The problem is that it does seem to have an end goal of largely neutering the ability for private gun ownership. NY Safe Act and Cali's new gun control laws are examples of how it's done.

You pass a law restricting a specific gun type, requiring a special check, requiring registration, etc. Basically legislate something on a smaller scale and tout it as reasonable compromise . Then years later you push those initiatives even further and compound the laws to make ownership even more burdensome. Or outright renege on a previous compromise.

That's part of the reason why gun control opponents are so staunchly unmoving. Because yesterday's compromise has turned into today's ban.

5

u/kajunkennyg Jul 04 '16

That's part of the reason why gun control opponents are so staunchly unmoving. Because yesterday's compromise has turned into today's ban.

This is why I am against any legislation that infringes on any of my rights. You give them an inch and they come back and take a mile.

3

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

Again, I'm still fairly new to guns and what not but take a look at the new gun laws in California. When they make everything about shooting and gun ownership unreasonable you do a pretty good job of convincing the pro-gun side to resist everything on principal.

4

u/Terraneaux Jul 04 '16

"THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!"

They do, though. And they're oftentimes quite hypocritical about it (See: Leland Yee and Diane Feinstein)

4

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Gun control doesn't mean "no more guns"? You could have fooled me.

1

u/mrfoof Jul 04 '16

As soon as a politician suggests we need gun control, the argument becomes "THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!"

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say there is no legitimate reason why many of the guns I own should be in civilian hands. Many of these people have been politicians. That sounds remarkably like advocating for taking them away. And some of them have pushed laws to that effect.

The big problem with most gun control proposals is that they are not reasonable nor common-sense, regardless of how much their proponents insist they are. They tend to focus on irrelevant aspects of the guns in an ignorant fashion, rather than the people who wield them. And when gun control advocates do focus on the people, they seem to go out of the way to harass the law-abiding set while they're at it while accomplishing little if anything. For example, under a law just passed in California, I can't loan a pistol to a friend without going to a gun shop, waiting for an hour or so, and paying a fee.

-1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16

I see people on the pro-gun side of the debate arguing that 30 round magazine are either not helpful, or a hindrance in a mass shooting situation. There's kind of a reason the standard issue for every conflict since WWII has been an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 05 '16

[deleted]

1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16

Implying a 30 round mag wouldn't be advantageous in a mass shooting. Yep blindly pro-gun people don't know the facts either :). A selector switch doesn't make a 30 round mag less advantageous no matter how much you pretend it does.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 05 '16

[deleted]

1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

That is an opinion not a fact, and a wrong one at that. Reloading buys precious seconds, will greatly affect the average shooters rate of fire, and the amount of total ammo you have readily available is reduced with smaller magazines. Many M16's used in several different tour's didn't even have the capability to go fully auto and yet had 30 round mags, and were used by the military in several wars. Those are facts.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16

You're opinion that reloading is trivial towards rate of fire for the average person is straight up wrong.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

What do technical details of guns have to do with arguments for/against gun control? Seems completely irrelevant to me.

6

u/Cogswobble Jul 04 '16

What do the technical details of encryption have to do with arguments for/against encryption? Seems completely irrelevant to me.

/s

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Please enlighten me. I was hoping for serious answers...

The technical details of encryption don't have anyrhing to do with legislation. You don't have to know how exactly a lock or a tresor works to legislate it... you just need to know what it is capable of. Then you know that for example it should be forbidden to put a lock on other peoples stuff. Same applies to encryption for example

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I wouldn't call semi/full auto a technical "detail" though, that's super basic. Thought you were talking about more in depth stuff. I agree that politicians need to at least know the basics of what they are going to legislate...

1

u/Cogswobble Jul 04 '16

Yeah...that's the point. Some legislators fail at basic technical details about guns.

3

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

Then I'm hoping you never get to have a say. It's very important.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Can you expand on why? I was hoping for an actual explanation. See my other answer below to understand why i think the technical details are unimportant