zlacker

[return to "EFF’s concerns about the UN Cybercrime Convention"]
1. pif+02a[view] [source] 2024-08-14 14:33:10
>>walter+(OP)
Please, help me understand something!

Private, remote communication was not a thing until a couple of decades ago: how can we consider it a basic human right?

◧◩
2. dogsle+O9a[view] [source] 2024-08-14 15:11:21
>>pif+02a
That it didn't exist is not really that relvant. I.e. the US classified secrecy as a munition so under the US' framing it is a 2nd amendment right necessary to balance power between people and government.. Take it away from all and it is no longer essential.
◧◩◪
3. some_r+2ja[view] [source] 2024-08-14 16:04:03
>>dogsle+O9a
Has this framing ever actually been tested in court? Between the dramatic re-interpretation of the 2nd as a collective non-right and the precedent of laws like ITAR and other munitions controls I can't imagine this would hold up.
◧◩◪◨
4. armini+Ema[view] [source] 2024-08-14 16:21:48
>>some_r+2ja
Remember the 90s cryptowars and the "illegal shirts with math on them"?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. some_r+qBa[view] [source] 2024-08-14 17:54:19
>>armini+Ema
Yeah that was largely about export controls vs freedom of speech, I don't know of any actual court case involving the second amendment a la https://xkcd.com/504/
[go to top]