Well, if you call us gun nuts, we might not respond well. Most of the folks I know who love guns are pretty protective of their other rights, but fighting constantly to keep one right does tend to drain the coffers for other causes. FreedomWorks cares quite a bit about both.

I am not fond of the EFF because they don’t win. I would gladly contribute to an NRA for encryption if it was shown the people running it would use the exact same tactics as the NRA. No prisoners, no compromise, and flag waving. It’s better to be feared than weak in politics.

As I understand it, Australia already got rid of guns, so it’s no real surprise that their government is taking more of their liberties away.

There are an awful lot of people in the U.S. who are very committed to protecting gun rights, and are willing to vote on that issue. I don't think we've gotten to that point with crypto; it's a much newer issue, kinda geeky, way less visceral.

So the NRA collects a lot of money, targets unsupportive politicians, and can turn votes against them. The EFF has less money, and it's questionable whether ads attacking politicians for not supporting crypto would work. To the extent gun owners have bought the Republican scaremongering about terrorists, it might even backfire.

The EFF does what it can by focusing its efforts on the judicial system instead.

The legislature writes the laws. People need to make it election suicide to oppose encryption.

I won’t go down the road on your terrorist comment since it has nothing to do with the article.

My point is that the government claims it needs to break encryption to protect us from terrorists. Republicans tend to push that anti-terrorist angle pretty hard. Given that most activist gun owners are Republicans, they might not be all that supportive of cryptography.

Libertarian gun owners definitely support both gun rights and crypto, but that's a smaller group.

You can only carry out the "election suicide" strategy if you have enough popular support. Until then you're stuck with what the EFF does: education and legal action.

I think you'll find a lot of gun owners who are Republican think the party leadership is out to lunch on some issues, and frankly opinions on side issues in the party have changed multiple times. Witness a lot of the MJ debate.

> You can only carry out the "election suicide" strategy if you have enough popular support. Until then you're stuck with what the EFF does: education and legal action.

Well, education and legal action are fine things, but they will not get you to where you want. They need to get over themselves and get a booth at the next NRA convention and maybe a booth at some gun shows. A nice catch phrase linking the protection provided by gun ownership with the protection offered by encryption would be a nice bonus.

I agree with all of that, and those sound like great ideas.

If the EFF would rather not link the issues for fear of alienating some supporters, then maybe some new organization could.

There's a cultural divide here; many Australians do not consider gun ownership a "liberty" in the same way as Americans do because we do not share the same revolutionary history.

If anything in Australia's history guns were used for oppression (of Aboriginal people) and not for liberation.

Nobody got rid of guns in Australia. We removed semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. And when I say we "removed" them, we bought them back at a fair price.

You can still own a gun in Australia. We just have a gun-averse culture, we do background checks on those who do have guns, and we have a National Firearms Agreement across all states and territories. Something I note that you don't have in the U.S. (well, some states do background checks, which is irrelevant if you buy a gun in a state that does not and move to the state that does).

You could, of course, read the Agreement yourself:

https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Firearms/Documents/2017-na...

> I would gladly contribute to an NRA for encryption if it was shown the people running it would use the exact same tactics as the NRA.

You might be aware that, to get involved in electioneering and financial support of candidates, an "NRA for encryption" would need to have a different tax status than EFF does.

Yep (501c4 I think). That is the tax status EFF should have if they are going to do useful political action.

Re: firearms

Whether guns are 'niche' are not is to some extent dictated by culture and existing legislation.. In DC, they were all but banned until recently, and I believe still are hard to come by.. big surprise, they are very 'niche' (unless, as you said, you were in a gang or illicit drug industry)

Places where this is not the case and where you will find as you call them 'gun nuts', they are very common, and it is to some extent more 'niche' to be a gun restriction advocate, who, from this perspective are 'gun control nuts'. Or at least the two are more balanced ends of a spectrum.

Many people in the latter category still view firearms as a necessary check on government power, and those who advocate gun control as wishing to remove this check, much along the same logic as you support in your argument against encryption control.

As for whether guns could or could not be an effective check on government power in the modern 'high tech' age - see just about any ground conflict against armed insurgents the US has tried to involve itself in in the past 50 or so years.. while it hasn't always gone the way of the 'enemies', it has rarely been smooth sailing..

It is no surprise that some of the biggest restrictions against firearms have come during periods of rebellion/lawlessness - prohibition and gangs (1938 act) and the turmoil of the late 60's (1968 act)..

I fail to see how your line of reasoning doesn't lead to a future where encryption should be banned because the state can crack it anyway..

I consider it niche since most people do not own guns, and if they do, do not usefully use it outside of a hobby.

As for gang violence and illicit activities, a gun becomes more than a hobby and an actual tool.

This is a great analogy.

Encrypted messages are used by both criminals and whistleblowers. Weakening encryption will likely help apprehend criminals and even create a chilling effect on criminal communications. It will equally help apprehend police and government whistleblowers and create a chilling effect on criticism of authorities.

Although export restrictions on encryption were eased after Bernstein v United States and the political fight over the 'international edition" of Netscape/etc, I believe encryption for military purposes is still on the Munitions List.

Therefor, the 2nd Amendment should apply.

Actually, export restrictions on encryption are still there – you de jure need approval from the DoD.

There was a huge thread about it on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10835045

> encryption is a check on government overreach

It's necessary, but certainly not sufficient. There are tons of ways that the 5-eyes nations' mass surveillance agencies can get even to those who do use end-to-end encryption.

I wish anti-gun nuts would realize guns are just as relevant as ever as a means of checking government power. Besides, self protection is a basic human right.

1) My comment was not specifically anti-gun

2) Nuclear weapons are the only physical weapon that can check the US Government. That's why they shit their paints when a basically inconsequential country such as North Korea launches a potential nuclear rocket.

3) In the 1700s guns were the best weapon of the time. Nuclear weapons did not exist. Civilians were able to own basically military grade weapons and could theoretically rebel and potentially win.

4) In current days, if you wanted to legitimately make the claim of government check on power with civilian weapon ownership, you'd at least have to argue for military grade, fully automatic weaponry ownership rights by civilians. Not to mention the ability to stockpile explosive weapons and missiles. A bunch of civilians with gimped semi-auto ARs and hunting rifles would have been the 18th century equivalent of the right to bear bow and arrows or pitchforks and shovels.

1) My comment was as not specifically pro-gun as yours was anti-gun.

2) Yes, that's why the USG had no trouble brushing aside the Iraqis and people in Afghanistan who didn't want us there.

3) Irrelevant. Nuclear weapons are so hopelessly overscaled you can't actually use them - they're only good for threatening. It's not like Washington is going to nuke Los Angeles.

The reality is every successful indigenous revolution requires a schism in the military. That's the way it's always been. But an armed citizenry means a whole lot fewer military units have to defect.

4) Soldiers in the US army don't get fully automatic weapons at the individual level - those are squad level weapons. The fancy drones and missiles require a fully functional economy to create and maintain. Once a civil war starts all those supply lines dry up.

Are there examples of gun ubiquity actually having worked (except for the obvious one) against some government abusing its power?

Phillipines? I hear ISIS took over a whole city, undoubtedly with guns.

You can also be the judge for whether the extrajudicial killings are working.

Guns are protected by companies that makes billions out of them, encryption? No one makes that kind of money with it.

How do we start the process of getting an amendment protecting encryption added to the Constitution?

Either through Congress or a convention of the States. More likely through the States if you can hop on that movement.