Re:
by tetch on Wednesday May 11, 2022 @05:00AM
(#31337459)
This seems a tad hyperbolic. And the comparison between encryption and abortion is really weak - the differences are much greater than the parallels.
Especially when the author then goes on a tirade about law enforcement. Encryption helps conceal evidence of crimes, which is why many of those who enforce the laws seek to curb it, but abortion is controversial because those who oppose it believe that it's essentially a type of murder. It's not really comparable to just hiding one's tracks. I don't see how the two are intrinsically linked, like the author seems to be arguing they are.
I agree with the legal right both to encryption (albeit with penalties for refusing to decrypt specific data that could plausibly be considered evidence of a crime) and abortion (where the foetus is sufficiently undeveloped, or where necessary for medical reasons), but this article is just too much over the top.
I think the link is much more general. Take any act that today isn't a crime, for instance drinking alcohol, and at some point the government could decide it is against the law.
When thinking about this, try to pick an act you enjoy. For instance, practicing as a software engineer with out a license? I know it isn't a thing today, but as more software mistakes are blamed for more deaths it could happen.
Her argument is that having strong rights to encryption will enable us to continue to do these acts, write software w/o license, drink alcohol, have abortions, and be Jewish (see WWII), once they're no longer allowed.
She then argued that we should stop treating the US government as the good guys (by default) in conversations about encryption.
Encryption rights becomes another front in the war over any of these other rights.
> Weirdly, there are a lot of similarities between encryption and abortion. Encryption is a standard cybersecurity measure, just like abortion is a standard medical procedure.
Especially when the author then goes on a tirade about law enforcement. Encryption helps conceal evidence of crimes, which is why many of those who enforce the laws seek to curb it, but abortion is controversial because those who oppose it believe that it's essentially a type of murder. It's not really comparable to just hiding one's tracks. I don't see how the two are intrinsically linked, like the author seems to be arguing they are.
I agree with the legal right both to encryption (albeit with penalties for refusing to decrypt specific data that could plausibly be considered evidence of a crime) and abortion (where the foetus is sufficiently undeveloped, or where necessary for medical reasons), but this article is just too much over the top.
When thinking about this, try to pick an act you enjoy. For instance, practicing as a software engineer with out a license? I know it isn't a thing today, but as more software mistakes are blamed for more deaths it could happen.
Her argument is that having strong rights to encryption will enable us to continue to do these acts, write software w/o license, drink alcohol, have abortions, and be Jewish (see WWII), once they're no longer allowed.
She then argued that we should stop treating the US government as the good guys (by default) in conversations about encryption.
Encryption rights becomes another front in the war over any of these other rights.
Not for the baby.