4 ms·
This also shows that if we care about the preservation of privacy, we can't depend on technology to solve the problem on its own. No matter how well-engineered
by ewzimm 9y ago
This also shows that if we care about the preservation of privacy, we can't depend on technology to solve the problem on its own. No matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. A company can refuse to cooperate up to a point, but a government can always force it to either comply or cease doing business.
The Verge's recent technology survey showed that at least its audience believes that Google and Amazon are better protectors of personal privacy than Apple, so their strong stance on encryption and privacy is not yet completely effective in differentiating them from competitors. Hopefully articles like this will enhance the perceived value of privacy, because we need both private and public entities to agree on privacy for it to be effective.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoPerhaps The Verge would like to re-run it’s survey now, after yesterday’s rash of users being banned from Google Docs that we’re shared with them.
- njarboe 9y ago"it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law" That is true, but in the US a big problem is that part of the government is breaking the law with its surveillance. In that situation technology can help quite a bit. The constitution states that the government needs a warrant to search ones private papers. Encryption works great against illegal government snooping. When the intelligence agencies and Congress starts talking about requiring back doors, like the Clipper Chip or the Apple request, society can hear about it and push to keep the back doors out. Worked with the Clipper Chip at least.
- s3r3nity 9y agoYeah I tend to agree with you - if Tim Cook refused China's request and subsequently got all iPhone sales banned in China, the stock would tank and there would be chaos / folks calling for Tim to resign, etc etc.
- AndrewKemendo 9y agoNo matter how well-engineered software might be, it's ultimately subordiate to national and international law. For now. I argue that there will be a technology corporation more powerful than the reach of any nation-state within 50 years.
- ewzimm 9y agoI agree with you. I'd even bet that in 10-20 years, the primary purpose of nation-states will be technology management, if that isn't already the case. Administration by software seems inevitable, with the main problem being ensuring that the software is acting in our interests. We'll likely encode policies into something like Ethereum contracts once we have more reliable infrastructure.
- jernfrost 9y agoEthereum does not have that broad of an application. You are engaging in rather wishful thinking. Nation states exist because people have different traditions, values, language, history, economic and political systems.
- ewzimm 9y agoYes, there are important differences, and I don’t think Ethereum will fill the various needs, which is why I said “something like Ethereum.” With all the differences in nation-states, we have come to a kind of equilibrium today where each one has a convertable fiat currency through historical convergence. Each one has a similar hierarchical government claming authority through popular mandate. That’s an amazing consistency considering the different origins. I’m not wishing for any particular outcome, but considering past convergences and future potential, I’m simply saying it’s likely that some kind of smart contracts operating on distributed computing platforms will eventually become standard processes for law enforcement once computation is more ubiquitous.