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

"While I oppose things like encryption backdoors, I think it's disingenuous to say this is a "fake crisis." The 4th amendment has always required balancing security and privacy--that's why the distinction between "unreasonable searches" and reasonable ones appears right there in the text."

That would be mildly interesting - if this were a 4th amendment issue. It's not.

It is a first amendment issue. If I choose to communicate with you with a (seemingly) random stream of numbers, that is protected by the 1A of the Bill of Rights. Just like a KKK rally.[1] Just like burning a cross.[2] Just like Piss Christ.[3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ



I often wonder whether this is, in fact, a 2nd amendment issue. Consider: until very recently encryption technologies were considered a banned export ( armaments ).

Further reading:

[1] http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=478

[2] http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3696/is-the-right-to-...




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

Search: