4 ms·
I don't understand why respect would be part of this, or loyalty, patriotism, or whatever. Do you really think the best strategy to defend against an adversary
by Laaw 11y ago
I don't understand why respect would be part of this, or loyalty, patriotism, or whatever. Do you really think the best strategy to defend against an adversary is to shame them into behaving?
This is about what's cryptographically possible and what isn't. I don't frankly care if anyone respects my privacy, what I want is the ability to shut adversaries out, period, using math.
This decision means companies can say 'no'. That's a win, because it lets the math be possible in the first place.
- cryoshon 11y agoWell, being realistic, we have three avenues out of our totalitarian mess we find ourselves deeply in: 1. Political (use money, shame, votes, and threats, praying that these things still work to effect change) 2. Technological (use encryption, praying technological solutions are implemented evenly and properly and that there are no back doors) 3. Violence 1 and 2 are the workable strategies, and they only work when practiced together. Currently we are seeing the government's #1 try to trample on #2, frequently using #3. If we can whittle a bit more respect for #2 using #1, it'll make the rest of the journey back to liberal democracy easier. Political changes happen through shifted mindsets.
- Laaw 11y agoI don't think shame is an effective tactic, because it has no real "stick" component. People will always do what they can. The only way to stop someone from doing something is to make them unable to do it. That's not solved through shame or appeal to emotion, because the people doing the bad things aren't going to express emotions. Keep trying to shame them, and you'll simply fail. We need to build something they can't break.