• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trying Again: being necessary to the security of a free State

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
Original derailed thread

Second Amendment of the US Constitution said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

I won't completely restate what I said in the first thread, but to summarize:

After a brief discussion a few days ago, I was introduced to the idea that the word "arms" might be too narrowly construed to just mean firearms. In the modern day and age, the internet and information is just as much an armament in protection of a free state as guns and bullets are. More so, imho.

If this alternate view of "bearing arms" has been discussed before, could someone direct me to it. If it hasn't, what do you think?
 
Upchurch said:
Original derailed thread



I won't completely restate what I said in the first thread, but to summarize:

After a brief discussion a few days ago, I was introduced to the idea that the word "arms" might be too narrowly construed to just mean firearms. In the modern day and age, the internet and information is just as much an armament in protection of a free state as guns and bullets are. More so, imho.

If this alternate view of "bearing arms" has been discussed before, could someone direct me to it. If it hasn't, what do you think?
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech was in a different amendment. I think it's quite clear that in the 2nd Amendment "arms" refers to lethal devices.
 
WildCat said:
Freedom of speech was in a different amendment. I think it's quite clear that in the 2nd Amendment "arms" refers to lethal devices.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about freedom of speech. I'm talking about the ability to overthrow the government, if need be.

Further, I'm not talking about the 18th century concept of arms. I know the founding fathers were thinking of potentially lethal devices, but they were speaking in purposes of that which is necessary to the security of a free State. In the modern age, not only is it debatable that firearms are necessary, I would argue that they are, at the very least, insufficient by themselves.

I direct you to the Security Now podcast #82: Cyberwarfare and the article it references: Cyber officials: Chinese hackers attack 'anything and everything'.

The idea that firearms and things that explode are the only way that battles are fought is quickly becoming antiquated and, I suspect, will become even more so in the future.
 
To be fair, Upchurch, in your first thread on this issue, the first thing I thought of is precisely what you are asking. I thought of teenage or twenty-something hackers getting into government websites and wreaking havoc on them. More to the point, I thought of Wargames.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
To be fair, Upchurch, in your first thread on this issue, the first thing I thought of is precisely what you are asking. I thought of teenage or twenty-something hackers getting into government websites and wreaking havoc on them.
Click to expand...
In the podcast I referenced, it sounds like those teenage or twenty-something hackers are growing up and being funded by their government.

AmateurScientist said:
More to the point, I thought of Wargames.
Click to expand...
Great movie, but the perceived danger was still physical, i.e. the launching of nukes. Although certainly not as immediately devastating, the right online attack could effect a much wider area and could even topple a society in ways that, in my mind, an old fashioned terrorist attack could never do.
 
Upchurch said:
Original derailed thread



I won't completely restate what I said in the first thread, but to summarize:

After a brief discussion a few days ago, I was introduced to the idea that the word "arms" might be too narrowly construed to just mean firearms. In the modern day and age, the internet and information is just as much an armament in protection of a free state as guns and bullets are. More so, imho.

If this alternate view of "bearing arms" has been discussed before, could someone direct me to it. If it hasn't, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I think you're a gun hating commie. And gay too.

But besides that, it is an interesting premise. Had never thought about it before.
 
Upchurch said:
I'm not talking about freedom of speech. I'm talking about the ability to overthrow the government, if need be.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the second amendment? Isn't the well regulated militia to repel invaders rather than to overthrow the government?
 
Thanz said:
What does that have to do with the second amendment? Isn't the well regulated militia to repel invaders rather than to overthrow the government?
Click to expand...
I see it as both, actually. It was my understanding that the founding fathers, who just got done overthrowing a repressive government when they wrote the second amendment, felt much the same way.
 
Thanz said:
What does that have to do with the second amendment? Isn't the well regulated militia to repel invaders rather than to overthrow the government?
Click to expand...
I gather the thinking would be along these lines:

1. The ability to mount a cyber attack raises the electronic infrastructure* to the level of weapon, or "arms."

2. Since we consider the electronic infrastructure to be arms when in the hands of non-citizens, it must also be considered arms when in the hands of citizens.

3. Therefore, the electronic infrastructure is afforded the same level of 2nd amendment protection as more traditional arms.


*The term "electronic infrastructure" is certainly not the best, but I can't think of another on short notice, and I think it still conveys the gist.
 
So a militia of hackers would be protected under the second amendment the right to bare hacker tools and freely be able to post data to hack the goverment? If challenged and upheld, I wonder how long before it would be closed?

So in theory, citizen has the right to be "able" to hack the goverment at any time. But can only hack it legally to overthrow it?

Good thread topic Upchurch!
 
Upchurch said:
Wargames was just an analogy.

eta: wait, is "analogy" the right word? Overly simplified example? I'm blanking.
Click to expand...

Whatever it is, it doesn't work very well, especially when considering this quote:

Great movie, but the perceived danger was still physical, i.e. the launching of nukes. Although certainly not as immediately devastating, the right online attack could effect a much wider area and could even topple a society in ways that, in my mind, an old fashioned terrorist attack could never do.
Click to expand...

That's Hollywood, and only Hollywood. There's a difference in creating a backdoor trojan virus, and doing what you're talking about.
 
Lonewulf said:
That's Hollywood, and only Hollywood. There's a difference in creating a backdoor trojan virus, and doing what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Today, yes. But it is rabidly moving in that direction

From the article I linked to above:
The motives of Chinese hackers run the gamut, including technology theft, intelligence gathering, exfiltration, research on DOD operations and the creation of dormant presences in DOD networks for future action, the official said.

A recent Chinese military white paper states that China plans to be able to win an “informationized war” by the middle of this century. Overall, China seeks a position of power to ensure its freedom of action in international affairs and the ability to influence the global economy, the senior official said.

Chinese hackers were responsible for an intrusion in November 2006 that disabled the Naval War College’s network, forcing the college to shut down its e-mail and computer systems for several weeks, the official said.
Click to expand...
 
Daylight said:
So in theory, citizen has the right to be "able" to hack the goverment at any time. But can only hack it legally to overthrow it?
Click to expand...
I'll be as honest as I can be: I don't know. It is not a simple question with a simple answer.

Going back to traditional firearms, it isn't "legal" to use guns to overthrow the government, but the government is not allowed to remove our collective ability to protect ourselves from the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom