4 ms·

> Software development, already dominated by tech behemoths, will become completely out of reach of small development teams simply because the regulatory burden

> Software development, already dominated by tech behemoths, will become completely out of reach of small development teams simply because the regulatory burden is so high. It might sound OT to bring up TPP in a discussion like this, but please hear me out: It's important to block broad international agreements like TPP because it creates competition among nations that would protect us from the dystopia you describe. Let's say one nation, Uruguay, says "you know what ? Encryption is fine. And btw we're funding 1gb cheap fiber to everyone in our biggest city". Something like that could attract swarms of techies. Which would cause larger nations to think twice before their valued tech talent packs up and moves to escape their surveillance state. I know not everyone can pack up and go, but the competition and fear of just how many might leave would be enough to keep even rich nations in check. But if something like TPP goes though, they can point to all its provisions and say "boo hoo, you're shitting on trade deals by allowing encryption, now we're going to bully your whole nation with economic sanctions"

anigbrowl 10y ago
Let's say one nation, Uruguay, says "you know what ? Encryption is fine. And btw we're funding 1gb cheap fiber to everyone in our biggest city". Something like that could attract swarms of techies. It could, but it probably won't, because hardly anyone is going to move to a new country just so they can enjoy encryption and fast web browsing...and I say that as someone who has moved internationally 6 times. Look, your argument is fundamentally weak - we can generalize and say big countries are bad because it eliminates competition between smaller jurisdictions, therefore federalism is bad. And indeed, the notion that federalism is bad (or at least damn risky) is partly why the USA has ~3000 county governments despite the manifest inefficiency involved. Your error is in assuming that competition is always beneficial. As we can see in the US, counties and states frequently pass laws that reduce rather than enhance freedom. So while I wouldn't want you to construe this as an endorsement of the TPP in particular, I reject your claim that any kind of trade agreement is necessarily destructive of freedom. Besides, your notion of comeptition as unalloyed good is easy enough to subvert. Uruguay sets up the world's freest internet? Denounce Uruguay as a haven for cyber-criminals and impose penalties on unverified connections from there. Despite the fact that it makes the digiterati uncomfortable, things like child porn and terrorism are genuine problems that impact the lives of real people when allowed to operate unchecked. This isn't a 'think of the children' argument; I personally know people who were trafficked for sex and child porn as small children and who suffer from serious dysfunction as adults because of this. Their liberty and safety shouldn't be considered acceptable sacrifices on the altar of your liberty and safety; there are valid reasons to delegitimize some kinds of commercial traffic.
- terravion 10y ago
  While it is true that people (besides the very rich and very desperate) usually don't try and migrate to escape laws, corporations do it all the time and think about it proactively. It is particularly easy for technology companies to say, great I'll do all my hosting in Uruguay instead of Britain, make my terms of service under Uruguayan law, etc. If Uruguay becomes a criminal sanctuary--then sure maybe it will be ostracized internationally--but as long as law abiding, upright business people have legitimate business there its more enlightened policy will make others think twice about enacting less enlightened ones and give companies some options. Moreover, it gives companies tied to Britain a strong incentive to advocate for a reasonable policy so they are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. This doesn't mean that lawmaking has to be a false choice between anarchy and totalitarian surveillance, just that the OP's point that more variance in jurisdictions, the higher the pressure on the least permissive to mitigate the worst excesses is a real phenomenon.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I agree in principle but in practice this doesn't seem to be working out terribly well lately. Money generally trumps scruples on any even slightly complex issue that can't be reduced to slogans.
- digler999 10y ago
  > things like child porn and terrorism Good thing there are laws against rape and mass murder. > hardly anyone is going to move to a new country just so they can enjoy encryption and fast web browsing You can't know that, not until we live in an age where the mere act of communicating is a crime. Thats taking surveillance state to a new level. I'm sure some people wont even care, just like how many Britons dont apparently care about their new big brother laws, but there will always be people who care about their natural rights.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Laws against rape and murder facilitate the prosecution of those crimes, but not necessarily the investigation. Furthermore, the trade in child porn is not legally the same as the crime of rape, but does have measurable negative effects. As for people moving, I certainly can know that if we're talking about existing and imminently foreseeable conditions. That you need to posit a completely alternative reality where the act of communicating is a crime suggests your argument is fundamentally weak. I'm pointing out the demonstrable lack of interest under current and historical conditions. Available evidence suggests that people are pretty attached to places and prefer to undertake clandestine activity rather than just up and go somewhere else short of a stark existential risk. Do I know this to be true in the epistemological sense, of course not. Am I pretty damn sure about it in an empirical sense, yes I am. I've moved repeatedly and feel little or no emotional attachment to my birth family - in fact the farther away from them the better I like it. But this is really really unusual. the vast majority of people are intensely concerned with maintaining their family ties even at significant economic/political cost. Just because I don't share that mindset doesn't mean I can blind myself to it.

anigbrowl 10y ago

Let's say one nation, Uruguay, says "you know what ? Encryption is fine. And btw we're funding 1gb cheap fiber to everyone in our biggest city". Something like that could attract swarms of techies. It could, but it probably won't, because hardly anyone is going to move to a new country just so they can enjoy encryption and fast web browsing...and I say that as someone who has moved internationally 6 times. Look, your argument is fundamentally weak - we can generalize and say big countries are bad because it eliminates competition between smaller jurisdictions, therefore federalism is bad. And indeed, the notion that federalism is bad (or at least damn risky) is partly why the USA has ~3000 county governments despite the manifest inefficiency involved. Your error is in assuming that competition is always beneficial. As we can see in the US, counties and states frequently pass laws that reduce rather than enhance freedom. So while I wouldn't want you to construe this as an endorsement of the TPP in particular, I reject your claim that any kind of trade agreement is necessarily destructive of freedom. Besides, your notion of comeptition as unalloyed good is easy enough to subvert. Uruguay sets up the world's freest internet? Denounce Uruguay as a haven for cyber-criminals and impose penalties on unverified connections from there. Despite the fact that it makes the digiterati uncomfortable, things like child porn and terrorism are genuine problems that impact the lives of real people when allowed to operate unchecked. This isn't a 'think of the children' argument; I personally know people who were trafficked for sex and child porn as small children and who suffer from serious dysfunction as adults because of this. Their liberty and safety shouldn't be considered acceptable sacrifices on the altar of your liberty and safety; there are valid reasons to delegitimize some kinds of commercial traffic.

terravion 10y ago
While it is true that people (besides the very rich and very desperate) usually don't try and migrate to escape laws, corporations do it all the time and think about it proactively. It is particularly easy for technology companies to say, great I'll do all my hosting in Uruguay instead of Britain, make my terms of service under Uruguayan law, etc. If Uruguay becomes a criminal sanctuary--then sure maybe it will be ostracized internationally--but as long as law abiding, upright business people have legitimate business there its more enlightened policy will make others think twice about enacting less enlightened ones and give companies some options. Moreover, it gives companies tied to Britain a strong incentive to advocate for a reasonable policy so they are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. This doesn't mean that lawmaking has to be a false choice between anarchy and totalitarian surveillance, just that the OP's point that more variance in jurisdictions, the higher the pressure on the least permissive to mitigate the worst excesses is a real phenomenon.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I agree in principle but in practice this doesn't seem to be working out terribly well lately. Money generally trumps scruples on any even slightly complex issue that can't be reduced to slogans.
digler999 10y ago
> things like child porn and terrorism Good thing there are laws against rape and mass murder. > hardly anyone is going to move to a new country just so they can enjoy encryption and fast web browsing You can't know that, not until we live in an age where the mere act of communicating is a crime. Thats taking surveillance state to a new level. I'm sure some people wont even care, just like how many Britons dont apparently care about their new big brother laws, but there will always be people who care about their natural rights.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Laws against rape and murder facilitate the prosecution of those crimes, but not necessarily the investigation. Furthermore, the trade in child porn is not legally the same as the crime of rape, but does have measurable negative effects. As for people moving, I certainly can know that if we're talking about existing and imminently foreseeable conditions. That you need to posit a completely alternative reality where the act of communicating is a crime suggests your argument is fundamentally weak. I'm pointing out the demonstrable lack of interest under current and historical conditions. Available evidence suggests that people are pretty attached to places and prefer to undertake clandestine activity rather than just up and go somewhere else short of a stark existential risk. Do I know this to be true in the epistemological sense, of course not. Am I pretty damn sure about it in an empirical sense, yes I am. I've moved repeatedly and feel little or no emotional attachment to my birth family - in fact the farther away from them the better I like it. But this is really really unusual. the vast majority of people are intensely concerned with maintaining their family ties even at significant economic/political cost. Just because I don't share that mindset doesn't mean I can blind myself to it.