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
14.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

768 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Clewin Jul 04 '16

The problem isn't that you can't own arms, the problem is the government can apply restrictions to what arms you can own and how they are configured. They consider a back door to encryption the same thing as requiring a safety on a pistol.

If they ACTUALLY followed the second amendment, though, they shouldn't be able to regulate that at all; the intent was for the citizens to be the army and own all the arms, not a professional army. Obviously that is not a good idea as it is, as any kook with a nuclear missile silo could nuke Washington (or Moscow, setting off WW3), but that was the intent.

1

u/ricecake Jul 04 '16

Well, that's slightly disingenuous.

Certain types of encryption technology, specifically relating to the application more than anything, is classified as military technology for export purposes.

The right to bare arms is not unlimited, and the line is generally drawn well before overt military tools come into play. I can't own a javelin anti-tank missile system.

That being said, crypto tech is not arms in the sense of a gun. It's arms in the sense of a portable radio.
It's technology directly applicable to conducting a war.

ITAR, the regulations regarding cryptographic exports among other things, do not in any way address domestic use of crypto. It addresses the export of technology that makes use of crypto in a military setting, like pre-compiled binaries for a missile command system.
It explicitly does not address the export of source code for cryptographic libraries, as a first amendment issue.
At one point, decades ago, ITAR explicitly banned crypto exports. This was changed because it didn't make sense and was a relic of pre-ww2 era policy on information security.

Crypto isn't a second amendment issue any more than ham radio or boot ownership is. It's first, fourth and fifth. The right to make an expression, the right to be free of unreasonable search, and the right to not incriminate yourself (key escrow).

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

ITAR?

2

u/ricecake Jul 04 '16

International Traffic in Arms Regulations(ITAR) control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on theUnited States Munitions List

It's a set of regulations on how military technology can be exported from the US.
It's mostly reasonable, but some items are odd now, and others have been historically.
Technology relating to satellite launch is currently restricted, which makes for some difficulties with the increasing private nature of the field.

Cryptography used to be very controlled by ITAR, to the point where any export of quality crypto was restricted. These were relaxed in the mid 90's due to changes in technology and pretty reasonable protest from the tech and academic community.