3 ms·

> I don't want to live in a world where there's effectively a traffic camera pointed at the contents of my phone. [...] Would you consent to having a microphone

> I don't want to live in a world where there's effectively a traffic camera pointed at the contents of my phone. [...] Would you consent to having a microphone embedded in your driver's license that the FBI could "only turn on if they really needed it"? Not the GP, but I didn't read anything in dsacco's post that implies any of these. I understood it as saying that it's possible to understand the technology, and even have a strong pro-encryption and pro-privacy stance, without believing that FBI as an institution is fundamentally corrupt or motivated by malice. There is an inherent tension between the FBI's mission, citizen's rights, and the nature of encryption, and it looks like that tension might never be fully resolved. > When the people with power get to define the meaning of the constraints on their power, their power is without constraints. I fully agree, and I'm as convinced as you are of people's inability to restrain themselves once they have unchecked power. "Just trust us" always ends in disaster. > It disgusts me when companies and individuals are press ganged into being enforcement arms of the government. In my opinion, it takes a certain blindness to history or a level of sociopathy to be fine with this. This is the part I have trouble with; as I see it, there are more than two ways to characterize one's position on this issue than simply 'for or against', 'principled vs. sellout', or 'clear-eyed vs. blind'.

dsacco 9y ago
> I understood it as saying that it's possible to understand the technology, and even have a strong pro-encryption and pro-privacy stance, without believing that FBI as an institution is fundamentally corrupt or motivated by malice. There is an inherent tension between the FBI's mission, citizen's rights, and the nature of encryption, and it looks like that tension might never be fully resolved. Yes, thank you. This explains my thinking more succinctly and clearly than I did :)
- benchaney 9y ago
  If that is actually your position, then you aren't a counterpoint to my original post.
MrLeap 9y ago
> Not the GP, but I didn't read anything in dsacco's post that implies any of these. I understood it as saying that it's possible to understand the technology, and even have a strong pro-encryption and pro-privacy stance, without believing that FBI as an institution is fundamentally corrupt or motivated by malice. There is an inherent tension between the FBI's mission, citizen's rights, and the nature of encryption, and it looks like that tension might never be fully resolved. My opposition to the FBI's stance on this is independent of whether or not the FBI is corrupt or motivated by malice. The FBI, being made up of mortals, is an ever changing organization. Giving a philosopher king autocratic powers is giving that power to the tyrant that comes later. The tension between those with power and those surrendering power is older than the FBI. I agree it will never be resolved. > This is the part I have trouble with; as I see it, there are more than two ways to characterize one's position on this issue than simply 'for or against', 'principled vs. sellout', or 'clear-eyed vs. blind'. It's a bit incendiary, I'll give you that. I feel pretty strongly about this and let some of that leak out.
- white-flame 9y ago
  > Giving a philosopher king autocratic powers is giving that power to the tyrant that comes later. Plus, granting that power actively attracts tyrants and other predators to pursue attaining or usurping that position.
  - naasking 9y ago
    That's an interesting position. I wonder if the opposite is also true: that the more principled and morally righteous the organization, the less it attracts such people and the more it attracts more morally upstanding and intelligent people who like the challenge.
    - MrLeap 9y ago
      Your hypothetical may be moving on the wrong axis. I think a more appropriate counter example is whether or not positions that no one surrenders any power to attract tyrants. Does a tyrant wish to be a kindergarden teacher?

dsacco 9y ago

> I understood it as saying that it's possible to understand the technology, and even have a strong pro-encryption and pro-privacy stance, without believing that FBI as an institution is fundamentally corrupt or motivated by malice. There is an inherent tension between the FBI's mission, citizen's rights, and the nature of encryption, and it looks like that tension might never be fully resolved. Yes, thank you. This explains my thinking more succinctly and clearly than I did :)

benchaney 9y ago
If that is actually your position, then you aren't a counterpoint to my original post.

MrLeap 9y ago

> Not the GP, but I didn't read anything in dsacco's post that implies any of these. I understood it as saying that it's possible to understand the technology, and even have a strong pro-encryption and pro-privacy stance, without believing that FBI as an institution is fundamentally corrupt or motivated by malice. There is an inherent tension between the FBI's mission, citizen's rights, and the nature of encryption, and it looks like that tension might never be fully resolved. My opposition to the FBI's stance on this is independent of whether or not the FBI is corrupt or motivated by malice. The FBI, being made up of mortals, is an ever changing organization. Giving a philosopher king autocratic powers is giving that power to the tyrant that comes later. The tension between those with power and those surrendering power is older than the FBI. I agree it will never be resolved. > This is the part I have trouble with; as I see it, there are more than two ways to characterize one's position on this issue than simply 'for or against', 'principled vs. sellout', or 'clear-eyed vs. blind'. It's a bit incendiary, I'll give you that. I feel pretty strongly about this and let some of that leak out.

white-flame 9y ago
> Giving a philosopher king autocratic powers is giving that power to the tyrant that comes later. Plus, granting that power actively attracts tyrants and other predators to pursue attaining or usurping that position.
- naasking 9y ago
  That's an interesting position. I wonder if the opposite is also true: that the more principled and morally righteous the organization, the less it attracts such people and the more it attracts more morally upstanding and intelligent people who like the challenge.
  - MrLeap 9y ago
    Your hypothetical may be moving on the wrong axis. I think a more appropriate counter example is whether or not positions that no one surrenders any power to attract tyrants. Does a tyrant wish to be a kindergarden teacher?