[msp_yc]

How many people here think of encryption as a second amendment right?

If you find yourself arguing that it is - what happens when you are largely, if not wholly, dependent on a third party to be able to exercise that right?

We've decided that corporations get first amendment rights independent of their members - do they also get second amendment rights?

Are these just silly arguments? It's late Friday afternoon...

[noident]

Encrypted data is more like speech than a weapon. The analogy to guns just doesn't work.

[henryfjordan]

The US Govt considers encryption a form of weapons tech so that it falls under Munitions Exports Controls (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...). But the proposed law doesn't outlaw private use of encryption, only potentially outlawing corporations from offering it, so I don't know the 2nd Amendment would really apply.

[dependenttypes]

The US courts seem to agree that encryption software are protected under the 1st amendment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

[msp_yc]

If encryption is considered a form of arms, it does appear that there is case law that grants sellers of arms some constitutional protections - quick article at https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/does-the-second-amendme....

I think, at this point, one could successfully argue that the proposed law follows 'reasonable regulation' and so protections aren't afforded. But it would be an interesting discussion.