In the past year, a conflict has erupted between technology companies, privacy advocates, and members of the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities over the right to use and distribute products that contain strong encryption technology.
This debate between government actors seeking ways to preserve access to encrypted communications and a coalition of pro-encryption groups is reminiscent of an old battle that played out in the 1990s: a period that has come to be known as the "Crypto Wars."
This paper tells the story of that debate and the lessons that are relevant to today. It is a story not only about policy responses to new technology, but also a sustained, coordinated effort among industry groups, privacy advocates, and technology experts from across the political spectrum to push back against government policies that threatened online innovation and fundamental human rights.
http://www.newamerica.org/oti/doomed-to-repeat-history-lessons-from-the-crypto-wars-of-the-1990s/
[Also Covered By]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/history_of_the_.html
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hedleyroos on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:23AM
Isn't crypto covered by the right to bear arms and thus protected by the second amendment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:27AM
(Score: 1) by hedleyroos on Wednesday June 24 2015, @04:35AM
I get the impression law enforcement is more likely to respect the right to bear arms.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by davester666 on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:19AM
No. Everything invented after the Constitution was written isn't covered by it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by stormwyrm on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:58AM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:40AM
Ah, yes. It also don't cover things that are not explicitly mentioned in the text of the document.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @06:49AM
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:16AM
I think the bit flipped.
Now it seems to be 'all rights not explicitly given to people are implicitly retained by the gov't'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @07:36AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2015, @05:28AM
It would also be covered by the first amendment.