4 ms·

>no precedent for political engagement actually helping! Off the top of my head: In the US: the fourth amendment, Miranda rights, the right to abortion, vario

by phillmv 10y ago

>no precedent for political engagement actually helping! Off the top of my head: In the US: the fourth amendment, Miranda rights, the right to abortion, various efforts to decrim gay sex. Here in Canada, Trudeau père famously said "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation", adding that "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act,_1968-69 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act,_19...

Bartweiss 10y ago
Presumably "no precedent" means "relating to privacy and security". To the extent that there are legal wins there, they were either extracted by technical means (e.g. the crypto wars) or effectively meaningless (e.g. 'oversight' of bulk surveillance).
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  I think the point is that privacy and security are physical as well as digital and if political engagement made one prevail, why not the other? We have more privacy protections now than we did 100 years ago due to political engagement, there is not reason to believe we cannot continue that effort into the digital realms.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    It's a claim worth discussing, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced by it. There's absolutely reason to believe that the effort can't be smoothly continued into digital realms. First, because interpretations of how existing progress applies to digital issues has consistently minimized privacy and maximized institutional power. Second, because it's not clear that government oversight or legal protections are actually working when they are obtained. We have a long tradition of using activism to produce legislative wins, but on digital issues we constantly see those wins being ignored or circumvented (e.g. illegitimate takedown requests and unapproved domestic surveillance). I don't think giving up the political fight is a good idea, but it's always jarring when I see people say "crypto nuts should turn to politics instead!" The people pushing strong crypto have historically also been the ones seeking political progress with minimal results.
- phillmv 10y ago
  I do not follow. The fourth amendment establishes that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" Roe v Wade literally invented the legal right to privacy in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    The Fourth and Roe are relevant, although I would argue that gay marriage and Miranda are essentially unrelated. In the US, "no government in the bedroom" privacy and non-self-incrimination don't really carry over into "don't read my mail" style privacy. They might bound prosecution, but not surveillance. More broadly, what I meant was that digital privacy, security, and ownership have been a consistently losing battle. The interpretation of how legal protections (the Fourth included) apply to computers has skewed towards state power in virtually every case, and victories on digital issues are almost all a result of technological activism rather than pure political work.

by phillmv 10y ago

Bartweiss 10y ago

Presumably "no precedent" means "relating to privacy and security". To the extent that there are legal wins there, they were either extracted by technical means (e.g. the crypto wars) or effectively meaningless (e.g. 'oversight' of bulk surveillance).

stinkytaco 10y ago
I think the point is that privacy and security are physical as well as digital and if political engagement made one prevail, why not the other? We have more privacy protections now than we did 100 years ago due to political engagement, there is not reason to believe we cannot continue that effort into the digital realms.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  It's a claim worth discussing, but I'm thoroughly unconvinced by it. There's absolutely reason to believe that the effort can't be smoothly continued into digital realms. First, because interpretations of how existing progress applies to digital issues has consistently minimized privacy and maximized institutional power. Second, because it's not clear that government oversight or legal protections are actually working when they are obtained. We have a long tradition of using activism to produce legislative wins, but on digital issues we constantly see those wins being ignored or circumvented (e.g. illegitimate takedown requests and unapproved domestic surveillance). I don't think giving up the political fight is a good idea, but it's always jarring when I see people say "crypto nuts should turn to politics instead!" The people pushing strong crypto have historically also been the ones seeking political progress with minimal results.
phillmv 10y ago
I do not follow. The fourth amendment establishes that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" Roe v Wade literally invented the legal right to privacy in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  The Fourth and Roe are relevant, although I would argue that gay marriage and Miranda are essentially unrelated. In the US, "no government in the bedroom" privacy and non-self-incrimination don't really carry over into "don't read my mail" style privacy. They might bound prosecution, but not surveillance. More broadly, what I meant was that digital privacy, security, and ownership have been a consistently losing battle. The interpretation of how legal protections (the Fourth included) apply to computers has skewed towards state power in virtually every case, and victories on digital issues are almost all a result of technological activism rather than pure political work.