Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It appears to be more about being allowed to communicate, than being allowed to do so privately.


Is there some restriction on what language in which you're allowed to communicate? Encryption is just a language.

To say I don't have a right to use encryption is to say I don't have a right to speak things that other can't understand. And I see: it's not my fault you don't understand.

If you want access to encrypted information, break the encryption. Outsmart me. Don't make it illegal for me to outsmart you.


The line of reasoning, is, IMO:

You have the right to communicate freely -> encryption is just a form of (ostensibly garbled) communication -> you have the right to use encryption freely.

Nothing in that clause says the communication must be understandable or even interpretable by all people.


You could argue that freedom to communicate covers the use of encryption. If encryption was outlawed however, it wouldn't be the right for individuals to use it that would be outlawed, it would be the right for companies to sell products with strong encryption, or to do so without backdoors. That in turn would deny many the use of crypto, but it would not deny them the freedom to communicate.

I don't think outlawing maths or outlawing companies from making an iPhone that they themselves can't break into is even remotely possible. The conclusion from that is that what we have can't really be a war on crypto, it must simply be the noise of people who realized they already lost.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: