Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ phkamp 2 days ago

I suggest you look into how much of chemistry, physics and biology has already been "outlawed", and how the legislatures went about it ?

▲kriops 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If I possess, e.g., a certain quantity of U235, the government can act on the material, e.g., confiscate it because it is a physical entity. Meanwhile, I can arrive at the knowledge required for encryption, and even an encrypted message, a priori.

In other words, it is not even slightly comparable.

▲fdsfdsfdsaasd 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

That knowledge is not illegal, nor would it necessarily be illegal to write it down.

▲lostlogin 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> nor would it necessarily be illegal to write it down.

Just don’t write it down encrypted.

▲aleph_minus_one 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> That knowledge is not illegal, nor would it necessarily be illegal to write it down.

In Germany, it is often illegal to disseminate such material (e.g. for building bombs) by § 130a StGB:

> https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130a.html

DeepL translation:

"§ 130a Instructions for criminal offenses

(1) Anyone who disseminates or makes publicly available content (§ 11 (3)) that is suitable for serving as instruction for an unlawful act referred to in § 126 (1) and is intended to promote or arouse the willingness of others to commit such an act shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine.

(2) The same penalty shall apply to anyone who

1. disseminates or makes available to the public content (§ 11 (3)) that is suitable for serving as instructions for an unlawful act referred to in § 126 (1), or

2. gives instructions in public or at a meeting for an unlawful act referred to in Section 126 (1)

in order to encourage or incite others to commit such an act.

(3) § 86 (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis."

---

For reference: § 126 StGB is:

> https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__126.html

DeepL translation:

"§ 126 Disturbance of public order by threatening to commit criminal offenses

(1) Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,

1. commits one of the cases of breach of the peace specified in § 125a sentence 2 nos. 1 to 4,

2. commits a criminal offense against sexual self-determination in the cases specified in § 177 paragraphs 4 to 8 or § 178,

3. murder (§ 211), manslaughter (§ 212) or genocide (§ 6 of the International Criminal Code) or a crime against humanity (§ 7 of the International Criminal Code) or a war crime (§§ 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 of the International Criminal Code),

4. grievous bodily harm (§ 224) or serious bodily harm (§ 226),

5. a criminal offense against personal freedom in the cases of Section 232 (3) sentence 2, Section 232a (3), (4) or (5), Section 232b (3) or (4), Section 233a (3) or (4), in each case insofar as these are crimes, Sections 234 to 234b, § 239a or § 239b,

6. robbery or extortion (§§ 249 to 251 or § 255),

7. a crime dangerous to the public in the cases of Sections 306 to 306c or 307 (1) to (3), Section 308 (1) to (3), Section 309 (1) to (4), Sections 313, 314 or 315 (3), § 315b (3), § 316a (1) or (3), § 316c (1) or (3) or § 318 (3) or (4), or

8. a dangerous offense in the cases of § 309 (6), § 311 (1), § 316b (1), § 317 (1) or § 318 (1)

shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine.

(2) Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb public peace, knowingly falsely claims that one of the unlawful acts referred to in paragraph 1 is about to be committed shall also be punished.

▲SV_BubbleTime 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are familiar with “intent” right? It’s not right, that doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

▲fsflover 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Tell that to Chinese trying to get through the Great Firewall.

▲paweladamczuk 2 days ago | parent [-]

Better yet, tell that to the Chinese who can't be bothered to try to get through the Great Firewall.

▲aredox 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, nitrogen chemistry, high-concentration hydrogen peroxyde is already fairly restricted, as well as poisons.

Including in the US. The "right to bear arms" doens't cover high-energy explosives.

▲jandrewrogers 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

High explosives are even less regulated than firearms in the US. You can buy them by the ton and explosives are very inexpensive. This does not circumvent compliance with regulations for safe transport and storage, which is the practical limitation.

▲aredox a day ago | parent [-]

>the practical limitation

That... Wouldn't be tolerated if this was a 2nd amendment right. Imagine the same limitations applied to firearms.

▲mothballed a day ago | parent [-]

Black powder, which is used (and at the time necessary) in the kind of firearms used when the 2A was conceived, has such limitations in any non-trivial (more than personal use) quantity.

▲mothballed 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ackshually, when the NFA was passed to 'tax' explosives ('destructive devices'), it was considered unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep/bear arms to ban explosives, machine guns, etc so they 'taxed' them instead. You can still buy/manufacture them with a tax stamp.

Also when congress de-funded (outlawed) the process for felons to restore their firearm rights, they forgot to do it with explosives. So even a felon can have high-energy explosives legally.

▲SV_BubbleTime 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Interestingly, the laws around high explosives in the US aren’t as restricted as you think.

You can make lots of things legally. The laws are around storage and transport. Where the short version is you 24hours and you mostly can’t transport.