[Cryptography] Cryptography, backdoors and the Second Amendment

Sampo Syreeni decoy at iki.fi
Thu Oct 9 21:49:13 EDT 2014

On 2014-10-09, Steve Furlong wrote:

>> As the US State Department classifies cryptography as a munition, 
>> shouldn't the use of cryptography be protected under the 2nd 
>> Amendment?
> You're expecting consistency, logic, or even honesty from a 
> government? Your naivete is so /cute/!

So is yours: obviously you can *have* and *use* it, it's just that you 
can't *export* it to the *terrorists* and the rest of the bad people who 
aren't you.

Perfectly consistent. Of course perfectly fucked up from the viewpoint 
of a foreign libertarian like me as well. But it really is fully 
consistent, and it was so from the very start, right downto the basic 
classical liberal ideology I as well share: "there is only one correct 
law, it is universal, if you don't share it then you haven't Been 
Enlightened yet, and thus we for very good reason don't Mind you too 
much". "Till you join our movement of universal rationality..."

So, then, as it's basically a valid argument, how about taking its 
contraposition? "As we then already know crypto is right, and it'ss used 
by precisely the right, righteous people all round, should it not be the 
case those who make a claim against are simply wrong."

Should it not in fact be, that making a case against free crypto should 
be taken as a prima facie case of the speaker being a fascist, against 
democracy, a luddite, and an all-round bad guy? Out to get immortalized 
as the next Hitler?
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - decoy at iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-40-3255353, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

More information about the cryptography mailing list