Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by tremon on Thursday October 06, 2016 @05:21AM
(#12651156)
To me, the goal isn't the only thing that matters. How you achieve that goal matters too, and "using a threat of violence" ranks pretty low on the ladder of civility. Trying to equate the arguments based on goal alone is starting your argument from a false equivalence.
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by gnarbarian on Saturday October 15, 2016 @10:43PM
(#12716603)
The ends don't justify the means. Of course.
People will use force to take advantage of your moral stand against violence and make you comply to things you do not agree to.
We both abhor violence. The difference is I refuse to be victimized by it.
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by jacalata on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @09:32PM
(#12649456)
Encryption means I can leave my private data unattended and be confident nobody will read it. That was easy.
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by gnarbarian on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @09:41PM
(#12649519)
Cool! Do you now better understand the rationale of gun rights advocates?
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by jacalata on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @11:18PM
(#12649987)
No, I understood it pretty well earlier thanks. It's nice if this exercise helped you though.
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by gnarbarian on Thursday October 06, 2016 @12:08AM
(#12650182)
At least you learned something about making an objective argument.
Re:Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data
by jacalata on Thursday October 06, 2016 @02:41AM
(#12650656)
nah, I'm still right where I started - arguments that ignore emotional impacts are great little learning exercises but pointless if you are trying to achieve something in the real world. Good luck out there.
Here are some examples of how both a gun and encryption can be used for the same end goal.
X can secure a financial transaction
X can stop a thief from obtaining my credit card information
X can stop someone from forcibly obtaining my identity
X can stop an attacker from obtaining private data stored in my home.
The only thing I've been able to think of that applies to encryption and does not apply to a gun is:
Encryption can verify that a message actually came from me by decrypting it using my public key.
This is objectively true for encryption and objectively false for a firearm. Also a firearm doesn't really help with anything on the internet except maybe a shady craigslist transaction in a dark parking lot. But I meant to imply that a realistic and suitable physical analogy can be applied.