6 ms·

I think using democracy to determine "objective" correctness is not necessary to play the devil's advocate. To put it simply, if a democratic society decides th

by ENOTTY 9y ago

I think using democracy to determine "objective" correctness is not necessary to play the devil's advocate. To put it simply, if a democratic society decides that it doesn't want unbreakable encryption and that it wants all encryption subject to 4th Amendment procedures, why should that desire be overridden? That's actually why I find EFF's point about CALEA rather convincing.

mindslight 9y ago
> if a democratic society decides that it doesn't want unbreakable encryption and that it wants all encryption subject to 4th Amendment procedures, why should that desire be overridden? The general concept of a right, outside of what $ruler declares. If a monarchy doesn't want unbreakable encryption, why should that desire be overridden? The only thing that differs is the process by which centralized decisions are reached. You might have total faith in one of those decision processes, but I don't.
- ENOTTY 9y ago
  Not sure there have ever been absolute rights in the United States. So that means rights have to be weighed against certain circumstances. If the democratic society decides against your conception of the proper weighing of rights, you have the right to continue to try to convince your peers while complying with the law, or to leave.
  - qball 9y ago
    >If the democratic society decides against your conception of the proper weighing of rights, you have the right to continue to try to convince your peers while complying with the law Society is always right, by definition. When your democratic society decides it's OK to kill all of Subgroup X, I guess that's totally fine morally and ethically (and if you're a member of Subgroup X, it's unethical to defend yourself). After all, the majority has investigated itself and found that it has done nothing wrong.
    - ENOTTY 9y ago
      Yep! As a minority, you better hope that (or can convince) the majority values the rights that you use most often (life, due process, etc) over what the majority sees as the gain from depriving you of your rights. This is fundamentally authoritarian, I acknowledge. But it's reality and believing it's the opposite doesn't do anyone any good.
      - mindslight 9y ago
        Like the joke about the economist that does not reach down to pick up a $20 bill off the sidewalk (because if it were a real $20 bill, someone would have picked it up already!), you're ignoring the remainders. The main one being what is actually possible to enforce. The majority of citizens being bannermen for the government can yield pretty in-depth control (eg report your deviant neighbors), but there are still limits. For example, any government was hard pressed to discover and record exactly what people said in the privacy of their own homes, until QualGoogAzon came along.

by ENOTTY 9y ago

mindslight 9y ago

> if a democratic society decides that it doesn't want unbreakable encryption and that it wants all encryption subject to 4th Amendment procedures, why should that desire be overridden? The general concept of a right, outside of what $ruler declares. If a monarchy doesn't want unbreakable encryption, why should that desire be overridden? The only thing that differs is the process by which centralized decisions are reached. You might have total faith in one of those decision processes, but I don't.

ENOTTY 9y ago
Not sure there have ever been absolute rights in the United States. So that means rights have to be weighed against certain circumstances. If the democratic society decides against your conception of the proper weighing of rights, you have the right to continue to try to convince your peers while complying with the law, or to leave.
- qball 9y ago
  >If the democratic society decides against your conception of the proper weighing of rights, you have the right to continue to try to convince your peers while complying with the law Society is always right, by definition. When your democratic society decides it's OK to kill all of Subgroup X, I guess that's totally fine morally and ethically (and if you're a member of Subgroup X, it's unethical to defend yourself). After all, the majority has investigated itself and found that it has done nothing wrong.
  - ENOTTY 9y ago
    Yep! As a minority, you better hope that (or can convince) the majority values the rights that you use most often (life, due process, etc) over what the majority sees as the gain from depriving you of your rights. This is fundamentally authoritarian, I acknowledge. But it's reality and believing it's the opposite doesn't do anyone any good.
    - mindslight 9y ago
      Like the joke about the economist that does not reach down to pick up a $20 bill off the sidewalk (because if it were a real $20 bill, someone would have picked it up already!), you're ignoring the remainders. The main one being what is actually possible to enforce. The majority of citizens being bannermen for the government can yield pretty in-depth control (eg report your deviant neighbors), but there are still limits. For example, any government was hard pressed to discover and record exactly what people said in the privacy of their own homes, until QualGoogAzon came along.