[themeekforgotpw]

Aren't cyberarms arms?

Isn't the right to bear arms an 'inalienable right'?

I don't get it. And I don't get why this is a 'privacy' or 'free speech' issue or why corporations, as Google argues, should be exceptions to the law.

[SamReidHughes]

> Isn't the right to bear arms an 'inalienable right'?

Not in any American sense of the term. The "unalienable" rights were to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Selling guns to redcoats isn't on that list.

[hga]

For better or worse, right now the right to bear arms only holds in your house, outside of the 7th Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), with litigation in the 9th Circuit (the west, specifically California and Hawaii) and D.C. Circuit in progress, and if there are adverse results in those Circuits we're almost positive the Supremes will continue to deny cert.

We in the US pro-gun camp consider self-defense to be an unalienable right (see e.g. the U.K. for a notorious counterexample), but how that applies to exploits is not to my eye simple.

[tptacek]

You should read the whole story before commenting; this is about foreign trade in exploits.

[themeekforgotpw]

Inalienable rights. Not civil rights.

Inalienable rights are human rights - which extend (at least in theory) to foreigners.

I read the story.

But anyway if the Supreme Court ruling holds from Zimmerman it would apply equally well to everything in the article. Of course the Zimmerman case was about foreign exports as well.

Try to be charitable.

[themeekforgotpw]

If the downvoter needs help understanding the historical analogy that makes this above comment make sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...