[mcs]

Do these people understand that encryption is just software, and you can't prevent software from proliferating just by passing some legislation? It would make all legitimate purposes of end to end encryption illegal, and leave it only for the criminals. Have we not learned anything from the conversation on gun control?

[oliwarner]

Bad example. Gun control is fairly total in western Europe. In the UK you can own certain guns but to own anything other than a 3-shot shotgun you need a "good reason" to own it and can only use it in certain places.

And I think most people are happy with that situation. Some aren't but any of their arguments are quickly smothered with a "look at the US where they can't go 18 minutes without shooting (and killing) somebody"... It's a hard argument to counter. There's no right to arm yourself, there's no enshrined want to overthrow a government... Simply put, safety wins.

So yeah... I guess they'd seize on that and say that it's all for the best. I know it isn't, you know it isn't... But if they say it enough, and find an example of 20 where encryption is costing lives, it won't be long before the public thinks it's the right idea.

[thaumasiotes]

> arguments are quickly smothered with a "look at the US where they can't go 18 minutes without shooting (and killing) somebody"... It's a hard argument to counter

Sometimes I go for up to 30 minutes without doing this ;)

[Diederich]

> Bad example. Gun control is fairly total in western Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Though the opening line kind of agrees with you:

> Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe

[k-mcgrady]

>> "Have we not learned anything from the conversation on gun control?"

Terrible comparison. Gun control works fine here in the UK imo. In the US I think it's different as getting those weapons back from a heavily armed public is more trouble than it's worth - getting them back from criminals will be impossible. Anyway, it has nothing to do with encryption. I'm sure Cameron understands the implications of banning it - he just doesn't care. And there's very little we can do about it. There are elections coming up but our alternatives are just as shit.

[djrogers]

>> Gun control works fine here in the UK imo. In the US I think it's different as getting those weapons back from a heavily armed public is more trouble than it's worth - getting them back from criminals will be impossible.

Re-read that last part... I think you're making your own point. Encryption is already in the hands of everyone - it's far more widespread than guns were in the US when gun control laws began. How are you going to go about getting GPG for example 'back from the criminals'?

[k-mcgrady]

I understand your point but I don't think the comparison works. Encryption may be 'available' to us all but how many people actually know how to use it or understand what it even means? While I think banning encryption is incredibly stupid bringing the gun control debate into it doesn't work globally as guns are uncommon in, for example, the UK.

[adrianN]

The conversation on gun control has a very different outcome in Europe.

[thret]

I'm Australian, 34, and yet to see a gun outside of a policeman's holster.

Gun control: working as intended.

[anonbanker]

Am I the only one frightened by the thought that only police have guns? Perhaps it's due to the rampant police violence in my (Canadian) city, but that idea terrifies me. Who watches the watchmen?

[djrogers]

And one of the more common reasons given for that is the widespread proliferation of guns in the US. See the corollary yet?

[chisleu]

Government doesn't need to ACTUALLY stop it. They just like having fear to keep the masses in line and outrageous penalties to leverage people who disagree with the insane laws.

They can't prevent drugs or guns getting to addicts and criminals either, but they can destroy your life if you have either.

[yuhong]

This reminds me that encryption was once classified as a munition in the US too for the purpose of exporting.

[halostatue]

It still is, to an extent: if you have strong enough encryption products, you have to get an export permit for it, even now.

I’ve had to sign ITAR certifications when I’ve worked for U.S.-based companies, and some companies here in Canada have to prevent any Iranian-born employees from working on certain software in order to comply with ITAR (even if those employees are now Canadian citizens).

It’s stupid and I’m glad that I don’t work for those sorts of companies anymore.

[yuhong]

For most "mass market" software, since 2010 all you need is an encryption registration. Before that you had to do a classification request which was a harder and more difficult process. I wonder why this took until 2010 before it was fixed.

[tobiasu]

It still is, and pretty much every nation on earth has signed the agreement.

Most nations don't make themselves look like idiots by enforcing it against a bunch of open-source hippies, but try to export some crypto software for military use to North Korea...

http://www.wassenaar.org/ it's in chapter 5, can't remember whether a or b

Windriver recently got booked because of exporting OpenSSL...

[yuhong]

I think Wassenaar has an explicit exception for "public domain" software.

[Zigurd]

Yes. They understand it perfectly. You will find people right here who are so in love with the idea of sovereigns having literally unlimited power, physics and math be damned, that they will defend such denial of reality.