AG Barr basically said as much in a speech at the White House Human Trafficking Summit this morning. Decried "military-grade encryption (lol) being marketed on consumer devices" and made all the same old for-the-children excuses.
Naturally no mention of how his own DoJ botching and slow-walking the Epstein case may be helping some of the worst and most prolific traffickers in the country escape justice. It takes real gall for him to complain about how difficult encryption is making it for investigators to gather evidence of human trafficking, when the FBI still hasn't raided Epstein's New Mexico ranch.
Pulling a Pay out of the Anti-Gun Playbook "Encryption like this is only for war" and "Regular people do not need this type of encryption"
I wonder how many people support this line of reasoning when it used as a case to strip me of my Gun Rights, but reject it when it used to strip me of my Privacy rights...
//for the record, I support both Gun and Privacy Rights
Terrorists, drug cartels and child abuse. At least one of these will appear in every article related to encryption regulation. They're today's communists: a perfect political weapon to justify any measure taken, get any law passed and a valid reason for authorities to persecute anyone they want.
Nobody in positions of power actually cares about child molesters. They're after their political adversaries, dissidents, journalists, whistle blowers... People who can do actual damage to the foundations of their power.
Are you supporting this law in favor of the purported "more safety for children" outcome regardless of the privacy impact? Or do you believe the government should have access to the information that's generally encrypted?
I'm in the latter camp. If I can't trust the people my community decided to represent us, then I can only fix that problem by organizing and running myself. I haven't done that just yet. I'm very much on the fence here though - since this does grant a lot of power to the government...
But I don't really feel like this is the most effective way to make our children safer, and I feel like framing it like that is disingenuous. Maybe the reps who introduce it feel that passionately about this issue - but I'm sure a less drastic solution is available.
Maybe we should apply the "principle of least privilege" to the government!
The Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
the principle of collective right its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right..
The common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
--
I oppose any law, or regulation that is not in the defense of individual rights
Unless it is intentional, that logic permits swapping marijuana fields with e.g. heroin labs and machine guns with e.g. nuclear bombs. How can we objectively draw the line?
I am fine with Heroin as well, no one even government has the ethical authority to tell people what they can or can not ingest. If someone wants to consume heroin the only ethical action I can take is educating them as to why its bad, I can not prohibit them from consuming it, nor can I prohibit someone from selling it to them
There has also been a ton of unintended consequences from the pursuit of prohibition on the "hard drugs" including people with debilitating pain being made to suffer due to arbitrary drug limitations put on the medical field by people with no medical training
As to the common retort of "well do you support people having nuclear weapons" that is very easy, and my principle would apply to all manner of weapons. If we as a society believe that nuclear weapons are too dangerous then we as a society should ban them, completely. Meaning not even government should have them. This would also apply to machine guns. If we as a society believe machine guns are too dangerous for people to own then all people even people in government should be barred from owning them, for if the government does not trust me with a machine gun or nuclear weapon then I sure as shit do not trust government with it either
The biggest problem I have with Weapons control is Law Enforcement, and Military are always exempted from the law. If we believe in government for the people, by the people and that The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense, the the government of the people can not and should not have powers that exceed that of the individuals that make up that government. The collective should not, and can not be more powerful than the individual.
Equality under the law demands that if Joe Police officer has a M16, than I also can have a M16, if you ban me from having that M16, than Joe Police officer should also be banned from having an M16.
For the record, I do believe in the prohibition of Nuclear weapons, and all other Weapons of Mass Destruction, I believe in the complete prohibition of them including prohibiting governments
Generally speaking no I do not believe they should, however we would need to agree on what the right to privacy actually is.
For example I support the 5th amendment of the US Constitution and would even expand up on it to bar the government from forcing anyone to testify on any manner not just from self incrimination.
I also reject the current jurisprudence around the 3rd party doctrine.
Really the give away is in the vagueness if they don't give an actual explanation as to how it will protect children. They haven't even thought about it enough to come up with a reasoned pretext. Instead they are using them as a demagogic thought terminator for emotional manipulation.
The other hint is if the rest of their actions aren't consistent with their claimed position, giving a damn about the children.
