[i5heu]

I do not like these framings of "not a" because it always sounds so suspicious like "we are not a cult".

It puts the idea into the world that it could be a crime and maybe that it is the status quo.

Much better IMHO is something like "Encryption is a fundamental right.", "Encryption protects everyone.", "Without encryption there is no democracy." and so on.

Maybe "Don’t let them take your right to privacy."

[Retr0id]

It's also, unfortunately, not literally/universally true. There are plenty of jurisdictions and contexts in which it is a crime.

[xnickb]

A friend of mine had to swear on a holy book to not use VPN upon returning to their country of origin.

[jvanderbot]

This would make me nervous, but also optimistic that it's difficult to detect? Otherwise why use hell as a deterrent?

[Vilian]

Or just bigger leverage, the crime isn't using the VPN, but lying or dishonoring the holy book

[markhahn]

Which were you thinking of?

I can imagine Iran has some effort to discourage use of VPNs, though of course everyone does.

I thought China simply made it easy to stay within the Great Firewall, and moderately difficult to get out.

[Retr0id]

There's a decent overview here: https://www.gp-digital.org/world-map-of-encryption/

[arnonejoe]

I don’t understand this. If you live in the US and use a service like ProtonMail, has a crime been committed? Are there any examples here in the US or anywhere else of arrests/prosecutions being made over encryption? I’ve never heard of any??

[gruez]

He's probably talking about authoritarian regimes like China or whatever.

[RIMR]

There are places that are not the United States.

[Retr0id]

I don't live in the US

[roenxi]

Also, I've heard it said that people have a tendency to subconsciously flush "not" and remember that sort of statement as "encryption is a crime". It is slightly better to put things positively (eg, "Encryption is the reasonable default").

[stronglikedan]

It makes sense in this context, as it operates on the idea that it could be a crime: "Contrary to what some policymakers seem to believe, whether naively or maliciously, encryption is not a crime."

[netfortius]

The "is a right" hasn't worked in years. I'm a lot of areas. . I rather agree with the more specific and up to date "is not a crime".

[OhMeadhbh]

Claiming a right is not the same as exercising the right, though typically the claim precedes the exercise. Also, are you suggesting you don't have the right to use encrypted communications? (assuming you're not in France, where the "right" to encrypted communications has never been explicitly recognized.)

[giantg2]

I generally agree. My first thought was that if I encrypt your data without your permission, that would be a crime (eg ransomware).

[OhMeadhbh]

I think you also have to delete the original information before it becomes a crime. Though monkeying around on someone elses' machine(s) without permission is criminal behaviour in most jurisdictions I've looked at.

[kgwxd]

"Speech is not a crime"

[OhMeadhbh]

Not all speech is non-criminal, at least in the US. Inciting speech has always been subject to prior-restraint and fraudulent commercial speech has always subjected the speaker to legal peril.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms

Encryption is free association and free speech. Talking to someone about what I like without eavesdroppers

Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression. Presenting how I like and not how some wannabe king wants me to

[hilbert42]

"I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms"

Yeah, as someone who's viewed America from the outside for decades tragically it's no longer the country I once knew.

[giantg2]

I think this is a perception formed by media biases. Pretty much any right or freedom evaluated on an individual basis will show that rights and freedoms have expanded (at least up to a few months ago). Many of the negative things being done today have been done in one form or another for a generation or two. I'm not saying that they're right or shouldn't change, just that the perspective of eroding freedoms or right is generally not true outside of business regulations.

[hilbert42]

No doubt 'perception formed by media biases' has played a significant part and it's been exacerbated by modern communications and social media etc. but I'd contend there's more to it than just that.

What I didn't mention was that I've been to the US many times and I've relatives there, and I've even worked there and these factors have also influenced my perception.

Let me put it this way, if the Greatest Generation, aka the G.I. Generation were to come back today and saw what has happened they'd not only be dismayed but horrified. Right, much of that reaction is to be expected with intergenerational change, etc. but again I'd suggest it's more than that.

It's not possible for me to even begin to justify what I've said as even a précis would take me many pages. Instead, I'd refer you to journalist Tom Brokaw's 1998 book The Greatest Generation wherein he describes the values and beliefs of the people of this generation as well as the ethos of the era in which they lived. Far be it for me to tell American society what it ought to be doing but I'm of the opinion it wouldn't be a bad idea if all Americans read this book—after all, it's actually Brokaw who's making the suggestion that his countrymen read the book or he wouldn't have written it.

In short, Brokaw wrote this book because he sensed the same change in US society as I had done and no doubt much more acutely so. I'll now extrapolate: it's now over quarter century since he wrote it and I'd contend the contrast to which he referred is now even more extreme.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation_(boo...

BTW, just don't take my word, I'd suggest you search out some of the book's reviews.

Incidentally, when I was working in NY some decades ago I shared my office with a GI of that generation and he became a great friend. I had many discussions with him about his past experiences. I consider it great privilege to have known him (his name would be familiar to some of you).

[giantg2]

You're referencing a book that is specifically written to convince people of the good parts of that generation. I highly doubt it's giving a balanced view or objectively looking at rights/freedoms expanding or contracting.

Let's just take some examples. What about interment camps during WW2, deporting communist supporters shortly after, racial segregation, performing human subject experiments on black people and biological weapons research on the public without consent, and much higher abuse of power or corruption in politics and in policing. Which freedoms existed then that don't exist today?

[hilbert42]

Yes, the book supports my case, it's also my experience of the following two decades (I cannot speak directly for my parents' generation).

There's no denying your examples but here we are discussing war. In times of war the normal order of things and ethics fall apart no matter which side one's on. During war, people are very scared and they act outside the box, they do strange things they'd never do in peace time. When I was conscripted I was not only furious but also shit-scared that I might be killed in an unethical war that my side should never have been involved† in (why die in the name of a wrongful cause?).

If you've never been in that situation then you would never know what it's like. (You may think you can imagine the situation but when you actually experience it you know damn-well your initial thoughts were wrong and way off the mark.)

Some of those matters to which you've referred are of my generation and right they're unforgivable by any standard, but again that was the time of the Cold War—and people acted as if there had been an actual war in progress. I know, I can never forget the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 and how people reacted, for thirteen horrific days days we wondered if we'd live until the next morning. Again, people act very strangely in such circumstances.

Did you actually live through the 1950s and 60s? I did, so I speak from actual experience.

"…and much higher abuse of power or corruption in politics and in policing."

How you can say that just beats me given the unmitigated mess that politics and governance is in today (and I'm not only referring to US politics, democracy is in real trouble everywhere). If I were blogging on my own website I'd ask you to provide solid references to back your assertions—ones that can be authenticated.

Moreover, how do you know what abuses of power are taking place today if they're hidden? Of which jurisdictions today are you certain that are free of human rights abuses, if any? Do you actually believe what you read in the media and or on social media? Where do you get your verifiable facts from?

"Which freedoms existed then that don't exist today?"

There are many—actual and implied. I'll steer mainly away from legislated matters because that would require more than just a paper but a whole book, and even then it'd fall short. Let me just say that despite the fear of the Cold War and nuclear armageddon, when I was a child and later as a teenager we kids had a much more carefree existence than today's kids—and that's important for mental health. Here are a few freedoms that don't exist today (there are many more):

• There was no drug problem, we were free of that dreaded vice. We kids were never offered drugs, in fact most of us wouldn't have known the names of them (moreover, many designer drugs had not been invented then). Cleary, none of us died from overdoses.

• Kids were free to roam without fear, we ranged and did what we wanted without question from parents (except to take advice to take care). We played without parental supervision (unfortunately today that childhood right (freedom) has been lost to childhood).

• Kids were not wrapped in cocooned protection as they are today. We walked to and from school without our parents although sometimes we caught the bus. (I walked home from school by myself from age six onward and that involved crossing a busy main arterial road). If parents had picked me up I'd have be hounded as a sissy. It was just not done—that's why we kids developed a much stronger resilience to life's knocks than kids of today (there's substantial evidence for that).

• The term 'helicopter parenting' had not been invented, and kids would not have stood for it (if a parent were to so act people would have thought such action as peculiar). Today, helicopter parenting is ruining many kids' lives.

• Many kids today are so protected and mollycoddled that they are actually frightened to leave the house. If a kid is sacred just to leave the house then it's a freedom lost! When I first heard of this I thought this must have been a gross exaggeration but in fact it's a real problem nowadays. If there were such cases when I was a kid then they would have only applied to very few kids with severe mental problems. What I am saying is that back then that actual instances must have been so rare that the notion of a child being scared to leave the home just wasn't in the public's consciousness.

Now take today's situation. If nowadays parents are so frightened of the outside world then something has happened to make them so act. Whatever the reason, valid or imaginary, there's something wrong with today's society that was OK when I was a kid. Arguing the contrary would simply be a fallacy—a non sequitur.

• Teenage suicide likely happened when I was a kid but it would have been such a rare event that none of us had ever heard if it, again it was not a notion of public importance as it is today. As kids, the notion of suicide never encompassed our thoughts. Kids today are aware of it and some mull over the possibly—we were free of such destructive thoughts.

• No one had ever heard of school shootings, it was so far off the radar that no one would have thought of the notion. School was a place that no kid feared (other than those few who dreaded school for the more usual anti-school reasons).

• Mass shootings were almost unheard of, especially so outside the US.

• Government interference in and intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens was only a fraction of what it is today, no mass spying etc. Sure, the Cold War wrongly targeted mostly innocent groups (but again a wartime mentality was alive and at work here). That said, the US was gripped by fear far more than any other country with ratbags like Eugene McCarthy fuelling the flames. Otherwise, people in most other Western countries were spared from such human rights indignities and violations.

And that's just for starters. Have things gotten better? No doubt some things have, and no doubt some are definitely worse. And some are just the same—war is just as ugly as it's ever been, perhaps even worse with weapons targeted on civilians (certainty so at any other time since WWII). Witness the current Ukraine, Palestinian and other running conflicts—clearly, things are the worst they've been in many decades.

Am I biased? Yes, everyone is to some extent, but my political science and philosophy training taught me to at least look at the facts objectively.

___

† I am of the firm opinion that to invade another country without, say, imminent annihilation is the gravest and most egregious action that any country can take. To defend one's country from unprovoked invasion is another matter, but even then one's defense must be measured and appropriate. Defending one's country out of sheer patriotism and bravado alone doesn't make sense. As Wilfred Owen said "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" is a lie and I agree wholeheartedly. No, I'm not a pacifist, just a realist.

[clarionbell]

The big issue right now is that they can't seem to agree on what those freedoms even mean.

[OhMeadhbh]

It probably was never the country you once knew. The view of "american freedoms" is radically different depending on the viewer's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy.

[hilbert42]

Prehaps not. See my reply to giantg2.

[jack_h]

> I wish Americans still believed in American freedoms

I wish people understood the American system at a philosophical level. What you call "American freedoms" are largely based off of negative rights, i.e. John Locke. Our bill of rights use specific language like "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "shall not be violated". It's inherently freedom from state action.

Over the past 100 years a different interpretation of rights has emerged, so called positive rights as exemplified in FDRs second bill of rights; e.g. "the right to a good education" or "the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation". This requires state action to facilitate freedoms for its citizens.

Unfortunately these systems are incompatible. I think a lot of the friction we are seeing in modern times can partially be traced to this contradiction.

[hilbert42]

"Unfortunately these systems are incompatible. I think a lot of the friction we are seeing in modern times can partially be traced to this contradiction."

I'm pretty certain you're correct but I won't attempt to justify it detail here as we have to bring out the political philosophy texts on mass.

In the light of the English Civil War many thought about politics and freedoms Locke being one, his contemporary [almost] Thomas Hobbes with a different position—the Leviathan. Rights, freedoms and social contract theory was still raging nearly a century later with Rousseau whingeing about man being born free but everywhere he's in chains—opening line of the Social Contract. And there's still no universally agreed consensus.

Over the centuries political philosophy has covered almost every conceivable interpretation/position about the rights and powers of the State versus individual freedoms, so it's not for the want of options/choices. Dichotomies still remain because the citizenry is composed of people with wide range of political beliefs many of which are incompatible (this has always been the situation).

We shouldn't expect a consensus.

[marcosdumay]

I'm not sure the US population ever really believed in fundamental freedoms.

They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago. There are living people from that time, and you can't believe in any human right and have an apartheid at the same time.

[cjbgkagh]

People believe in logical inconsistencies all of the time, it’s practically the default. Also there is no such thing as perfect freedom, it’s best thought of as an optimization problem with many dimensions.

As an example, the civil rights act necessarily curtails the freedom of association.

[hilbert42]

"They had an apartheid up to 60 years ago."

For many of us outside the US there's a dichotomy here. The North won the bitterly contested Civil War and freed the slaves but never really afforded them true freedoms. Why?

The perception from the outside is that conscience over slavery per se drove the North to war and not concern for the fact that slaves were actually people who were suffering enslavement and or unfairly treated.

Edit: Given the Civil War why was the Civil Rights Movement 100 years later necessary?

[15155]

> Transitioning gender is also free speech, freedom of expression.

Is a legal requirement for others to affirm this expression also "free speech?"

[kortex]

Has there been a single instance where someone faced legal repercussions for not affirming someone's gender?

[15155]

Legislation is currently in the works (and likely to pass): https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312

"Lose custody of your child" is very much a "legal repercussion."

[OhMeadhbh]

You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming?

[15155]

> You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming?

Classic strawman argument. Where was anything like this suggested? Are they barred today under existing legislation?

The eventuality of this line of reasoning is that: "special interests who control the DSM (or whatever standards body governs these soft sciences) can influence and determine the outcome of custody battles."

DSM-4 defined "gender-identity disorder" as a thing, that's now been de-pathologized to "gender dysphoria."

Under your framework, a body of unelected, politically and financially-motivated "experts" can now determine the imposition of legal consequences on a whim.