kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
The source of verification isn't the problem. I was using the government as a signing authority because it's the one the courts are most likely to implicitly trust.
Indeed, the list itself has to be traceable back to its origin. Otherwise, the courts will assume that the list that was used by the seller was not a valid one. So at the very least, the list has to be signed by the government at some point (or whichever centralized source will be considered the trusted repository for it). And since validity of the list is a time-sensitive thing, it follows that it has to be signed at the time of download. It's not enough to have it signed at the time of last revision, since the amount of time between revisions is not necessarily fixed (what if it's been a week since the last new felon was added?). A signature at time of download from the government (or whichever entity is responsible for updating it) ensures that the list is known to be current at the time of download, regardless of how long it's been since the last revision.
Now, you could have the entity that manages the list sign it whenever it is revised, and then have whichever trusted download sources exist for it sign it at time of download. That would also work. As long as the list is cryptographically traceable to its modification origin, it's all good.
I'd be interested in knowing what shortcomings it has that are addressable without compromising some other necessary attribute.
Oh, I quite agree. I'm not saying at this point that we're better off without this system than with it. I'm saying that making its use mandatory is wholly unnecessary. If someone wishes to open themselves up to the possibility of prosecution, that's their call. If they have some other method of proving that the person they sold the firearm to was not a prohibited person at the time of the sale, that's fine. But it has to be something the buyer agrees to, because any buyer who was concerned about being put into a registry would need to be convinced that the method used was sound in that regard.
Hmm...that's a point I hadn't considered. But yes, if the new system explicitly supplants the existing one for FFLs, that would indeed be a win.
Fair enough. The real question is whether or not the bill we would propose would mandate use of the proposed system for all transfers. While the internet is much more prevalent today than in years past, I don't know that we should presume that it will always be available to anyone who wishes to perform a transfer. How will the proposed system accommodate people without internet access?
That is true as long as the probability sum of the two ways exceeds the probability of the single way, of course.
Yes, but I expect that to be the case even in the presence of a proposed bill such as this one. What do you expect, when the opposition owns the mainstream media?
If that really is the case, then I certainly like the system I believe you're proposing for that purpose. But I have to wonder how much effort is being spent to convince them that a UBC system will have no real beneficial effect. I have to presume that the people you're talking about can be reasoned with.
If they oppose the current system, then the next question has to be why they oppose it. More precisely, why aren't they opposing it on the basis that it imposes a real cost without generating a real effect, and why can't they be convinced to oppose it on that basis?
That may be. But I would argue that the problem is more fundamental than that. We will never grow the political base as long as we fail to convince others of the real value of liberty.
Last edited:
Yeah, I realize you didn't say that...but it's still funny. 
