3 ms·
The ridiculousness of it all is it's unreasonable at its base to try to prevent encryption as a form of safety and security from violence. Sure, you can lock u
by loceng 9y ago
The ridiculousness of it all is it's unreasonable at its base to try to prevent encryption as a form of safety and security from violence.
Sure, you can lock up all communication for privacy reasons, and the government can spend all kinds of resources on trying to control to prevent or circumvent encryption - however it's a waste of resources as it's simply a bandaid.
If I wanted to do something violent or evil I/you can simply have regular meetings and use paper communication - the old spy-style stuff. Of course those networks can be infiltrated by governments with the resources, and they can maintain that presence by allowing certain acts within networks to occur vs. deciding which ones they should stop; it's how the war against Hitler was won once their encryption was broken - watch the very well-done The Imitation Game - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/ - for a reference.
The only real solution is dealing with the root causes. I heard an analyst on TV (a rare occasion for me) mention after Trump's Saudi visit and speech, that he didn't mention that the Saudis should look into the root causes of why there is terrorist activity growing in their countries; of course a lot of it is historical karma and rage from violent acts against their families, however a lot is because people's basic needs aren't being met which prevents the higher levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs from being reached and maintained.
There's a solution and it requires building real community, locally, where you are now - and striving for people to become healthy so they don't develop bias and other coping mechanisms which prevent empathy and understanding and therefore compassion; preventing responsible ownership of weapons isn't useful either, not developing and supplying weapons on mass would be beneficial, however most attacks recently have been with vehicles or knives.
Universal Basic Income will also allow closer to a truly free work market and it can evolve from there, giving people the time to do what they feel is the most important in that moment for themselves, while not having to be forced to working in a shitty environment with shitty managers or co-workers; the health improvement and increased productivity here alone is worth it.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago> however a lot is because people's basic needs aren't being met which prevents the higher levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs from being reached and maintained. This is contradicted by a lot of evidence. Terrorists are most commonly middle class members of their society and often well educated. If anything, terrorism is a powerful means of satisfying the higher levels of 'needs', e.g. meaning, purpose, community.
- loceng 9y agoInteresting and perhaps a fair point. We'd have to understand what quality of life being 'middle class' in each society means, what well-educated means, and there will be more factors of course. If you hurt someone enough either directly or indirectly by killing family and friends' family members, that'll definitely start to outweigh the feelings of being in a safe environment - which doesn't simply come from being 'middle class' or well-educated. Safety is the basic need and if you have a world power killing 100,000s of your citizens, your future isn't going to feel safe; I could mention PTSD and the such, though I think that minimizes and simplifies it too much.