FC Forums

The FBI wants to categorise encryption as a weapon. The same thing was done in 1995 but they failed, today though I think they might succeed with terrorism in the news everywhere. And that would be very, very bad for us. Basically they could go into our computers when ever they wanted to in the name of "finding terrorists".

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... e-resisted

To quote someone from reddit:

Reddit wrote:If the government told everyone that it was illegal to keep all door and windows locked on your residence, would you do it?

Would you unlock your doors and windows? Would you sleep well?

What if they wanted a set of keys to your front door, just in case?

What if they said, "Just keep your curtains and blinds open... we wont look inside... unless your doing something remotely suspicious."

Encryption keeps you safe from criminals. It protects your children's data. It protects your finances and your digital identity.

Security is a natural right.

Let them categorize it as a weapon. Let them get complacent.

Then bust out that Second Amendment of yours.

Alternatively, point at the previous court ruling and say "No."

Do you have any idea how hard it would be to organize a civil war against a government as powerful as that of the US? It would be an utter fustercluck.

I see.

Well, isn't my face red.

Tau wrote:Do you have any idea how hard it would be to organize a civil war against a government as powerful as that of the US? It would be an utter fustercluck.

We'll considering the US military swears an oath to uphold the constitution and not the government I would assume it would be fairly easy.
Also with Texas being able to rank like 14th in the world economy by itself I'm not too worried.

Danke, Jedi, I was too lazy to link that.

Shadowcat wrote:We'll considering the US military swears an oath to uphold the constitution and not the government I would assume it would be fairly easy.

You forget that the government gets its power from the contitution.
Taking down the government would be worse at upholding the constitution than letting them do stuff that's against said constitution.
also it says "and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter" which means "obey the chain of command", which ends with the president.
You would propably get deserters, but the majority of the army would still be functional. Have you heard how those people are trained? 90% of the armed forces are propably psychically incapable of disobeying an order from a superior.
And you can't expect a considerable number of people to join a civil war because the FBI managed to get an "encryption is a weapon"-law through congress, at least not enough to effectively fight a force equipped with a considerable ammount of armored vehicles.