3 ms·

> “[Technology can] empower individuals to do things they could have never dreamed of before, but also empower folks who are very dangerous to spread dangerous

by bko 11y ago

> “[Technology can] empower individuals to do things they could have never dreamed of before, but also empower folks who are very dangerous to spread dangerous messages” President Barack Obama said today. Behind every proposed restriction on speech is actually a fear of freedom of thought. As though there are some ideas or beliefs are so powerful, that mearly exposing an individual to those ideas can forever change their allegiance. It used to be communism and now it's terrorism. It's a very pessimistic and condescending view of the nature of humans that I personally don't believe to be true.

fixermark 11y ago
The "Snow Crash" theory of politics, if you will. ;)
- nitrogen 11y ago
  In that vein, maybe politics is the snow crash.
tumba 11y ago
There is also the mistaken belief that effective restriction of free thought is is possible through political/legal means. That strategy was ineffective against communism and remains ineffective today.
- vixen99 11y ago
  Yes, and as if a massive outrage cannot be planned and executed without using digital communication or perhaps using it but with pre-arranged 'innocuous' codes as a one-time pad.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Restriction of free thought has been extremely effective. Politically and economically the US is practically a monoculture. Encryption could only make it more so, through the chilling effect of forcing dissenters to think more than twice about what they communicate, who they communicate it with, and how they do it. It makes mainstream dissent like Occupy very much harder - and that's not even thinking about how it would have influenced historical dissent like the Civil Rights or Anti-War Movements. Commercially it also guarantees that the US has access to corporate secrets. If encryption is de facto illegal, how do you communicate commercially sensitive information?
cronjobber 11y ago
The target is not so much thought as it is coordination. Everybody may have dissident thoughts all day long. They're absolutely harmless as long as they can't coordinate.
- 50CNT 11y ago
  The danger in that however is subtly disarming other rights. Say it's 1960 instead of 2016, but digital technology has taken off 60 years sooner. The NAACP youth council coordinates over Facebook and e-mail lists instead, and the civil rights movement is under government scrutiny because of potential terrorist links. The Greensboro Four, Joseph McNei, Franklin McCain, Ezell Black Jr. and David Richmond are planning their sit in over Whatsapp, which an algorithm picks up. Someone at the NSA, sympathising with segregation, passes this on to someone in local law enforcement through non-official channels. Before the four even get to the Woolworth, they are detained by a police officer in a "routine" traffic stop. The sit in never happens for national security reasons. The right to coordinate seems absolutely essential to the right to congregate. I do think that the civil rights movement is a good example of how righting an injustice could be stifled by preventing people coordinating. Other historical what-ifs like the labor movements, the salt march, or concrete examples like the various secret polices of communist dictatorships spring to mind too. You could have dissident thoughts all day long in east Berlin as well, as long as noone heard them.

by bko 11y ago

fixermark 11y ago

The "Snow Crash" theory of politics, if you will. ;)

nitrogen 11y ago
In that vein, maybe politics is the snow crash.

tumba 11y ago

There is also the mistaken belief that effective restriction of free thought is is possible through political/legal means. That strategy was ineffective against communism and remains ineffective today.

vixen99 11y ago
Yes, and as if a massive outrage cannot be planned and executed without using digital communication or perhaps using it but with pre-arranged 'innocuous' codes as a one-time pad.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Restriction of free thought has been extremely effective. Politically and economically the US is practically a monoculture. Encryption could only make it more so, through the chilling effect of forcing dissenters to think more than twice about what they communicate, who they communicate it with, and how they do it. It makes mainstream dissent like Occupy very much harder - and that's not even thinking about how it would have influenced historical dissent like the Civil Rights or Anti-War Movements. Commercially it also guarantees that the US has access to corporate secrets. If encryption is de facto illegal, how do you communicate commercially sensitive information?

cronjobber 11y ago

The target is not so much thought as it is coordination. Everybody may have dissident thoughts all day long. They're absolutely harmless as long as they can't coordinate.

50CNT 11y ago
The danger in that however is subtly disarming other rights. Say it's 1960 instead of 2016, but digital technology has taken off 60 years sooner. The NAACP youth council coordinates over Facebook and e-mail lists instead, and the civil rights movement is under government scrutiny because of potential terrorist links. The Greensboro Four, Joseph McNei, Franklin McCain, Ezell Black Jr. and David Richmond are planning their sit in over Whatsapp, which an algorithm picks up. Someone at the NSA, sympathising with segregation, passes this on to someone in local law enforcement through non-official channels. Before the four even get to the Woolworth, they are detained by a police officer in a "routine" traffic stop. The sit in never happens for national security reasons. The right to coordinate seems absolutely essential to the right to congregate. I do think that the civil rights movement is a good example of how righting an injustice could be stifled by preventing people coordinating. Other historical what-ifs like the labor movements, the salt march, or concrete examples like the various secret polices of communist dictatorships spring to mind too. You could have dissident thoughts all day long in east Berlin as well, as long as noone heard them.