Re: Okay: Hacking BY THE STATE of a NON-STATE PROPERTY implies malicious intent.
Given the specific nature of my geekitude, I frame the thing slightly differently. Security is about protecting against attackers. An "attacker" is "anyone or anything that is attempting to bypass your security mechanisms without your consent".
Since I take a very technical view, the intent of the attacker is completely irrelevant and I don't even have to consider subjective things like whether or not the attacker is malicious.
But I'm not only a huge geek, I'm also a pedantic geek.
Most of of crypto technologies in use today were either developed entirely or partially outside the US.
As to accepted standards, I'm not sure of the point. There is no need for people to adhere to the accepted standards unless they want other existing software to be able to decrypt it.
If those standards are backdoored (as some are found to be from time to time), what happens is that everyone stops using them, standard or not. Even if, for some reason, that didn't happen, that's still only a minor irritation. Everyone can still use nonstandardized crypto for their own needs -- they'd just have to supply the decryption code to anyone else who they want to be able to decrypt it.
If they don't want anyone else to be able to decrypt it, then there's not even that minor problem.
This sort of response is an example of why it's impossible to have a real conversation about guns. Your comment not only doesn't really address what I said, it goes on and on about how banning them is bad, even though I explicitly stated that I do not support banning them.
Yes. Not just with copyright, but with almost every other form of IP. "I bet you'd love the patent system if you had anything to patent", etc.
I always wonder about the reasoning that leads to such statements, because they so often completely wrong. Take patents for example, I don't patent my own inventions because I don't see the value in doing so in my own situation. But I know a lot of people who have patents, and almost all of them think that the patent system is doing active damage to society as a whole.
I suspect that it's another example of the strong tendency of people to think that their own viewpoint of something is automatically representative of the majority view.
Perhaps, but from what I've seen it looks like the problem with juries isn't the level of intelligence of humans generally, but that attorneys tend to try to keep thoughtful, intelligent people off of juries, and that juries are subjected to shameless manipulation.
While I do not support banning guns (something for which there is nearly zero support anyway, despite the rhetoric)...
"Would it not be better to have every criminal outgunned by law abiding citizens?"
No. It would most certainly be worse. The last thing we need is for multiple, uncoordinated, and untrained (for this sort of thing, not for guns) people to start shooting no matter how good their intentions.
We get enough of that nonsense just from the cops.
Twice, I have been named as a defendant in lawsuits. Not because I actually had anything to do with the behaviors the suits were about, but because my name appeared in some documents and they just named everyone they could in the initial filing. In both cases, my name was dropped in the first round of litigation without any action or representation on my part aside from reading the letters I got sent.
Could this be what's in store for Roblox? It sounds like it might be.
But the more vague and broad (i.e., the more "room to move") a law is, the greater the likelihood that it will be abused. The benefit of the "flexibility" of these laws is purely for the government -- either to allow them to do less work ("micromanaging legislation") or to allow them to engage in more abusive behavior without technically violating the law.
That's why broad and vague laws are bad, and whatever legitimate purposes they may have do not counterbalance the risk.
A while back, I noticed that "terrorism" had become such a common and overused excuse for pretty much everything that I had developed the habit of discounting any governmental or other authority figure's argument the instant that it's trotted out unless the subject at hand is actually terrorism.
For me, "terrorism" has achieved the status a red flag term: if it's being used to justify or defend something, I am much more skeptical of that thing. This isn't a conscious thing on my part, really, it's just how it is.
What I just noticed is that "for the children" has now reached the same terrible status.