4 ms·

> 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,

by 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?
    - naasking 9y ago
      Not looking for a counterexample, just wondering if the human psychology involved has a dual that can be exploited to ensure high quality, incorruptible investigative agencies.

by MrLeap 9y ago

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?
  - naasking 9y ago
    Not looking for a counterexample, just wondering if the human psychology involved has a dual that can be exploited to ensure high quality, incorruptible investigative agencies.