3 ms·

Well there's a few ways to look at this. One diplomatically. The EFF doesn't want to overtly suggest that law enforcement are scumbags and thugs who abuse any

Well there's a few ways to look at this. One diplomatically. The EFF doesn't want to overtly suggest that law enforcement are scumbags and thugs who abuse any system and can't ever be trusted. All sorts of people would rally together to defend poor law enforcement and that fight isn't productive. Two, there is no perfect system. There can be no perfect system. For starters we wouldn't know what perfection looks like if we saw it. Between the flaws in people, tools, technology, etc a perfect system is impossible. There will always be flaws, even if the flaws are largely people using a pretty good system. hence the argument about flawed systems. It's a pretty safe argument to make because it aligns with what happens in the real world. >If someone were to design such a system but without flaws in its implementation, would EFF be OK with that? Call us up when that outcome ever occurs. I'm predicting sometime after the 5th of Never.

natch 9y ago
You're right, but I'm not sure you read what I said. >Two, there is no perfect system. Yeah you are agreeing with me here. I was debating whether to spell out that what I had in mind was the technical and mathematical parts of the system, but even that is impossible to get perfect. Adding in people, it is still impossible. Not more impossible. Still impossible. But we need to stop talking about how the technical part will be flawed. Yes it will be. But that's not the worst problem. The people part is the worst problem. Talking about the technical flaws is the wrong argument to make. Naive people will just think "well, let's have our smart nerds work hard on it, and they will figure it out" and therefore the argument makes no headway. And naive people elect congress people. And presidents. Who appoint judges. Etc. What the EFF needs imho is an argument that even the naive masses will understand. Not one that is vulnerable to bullshit talking points like "well if we can go to the moon, we can do this." On the being diplomatic point, yes probably that's the case. I just think they could choose more of a realistic stance somewhere between the position of this paper, which is fairy tales pretending everything is OK as long as it's inside the US borders, and the rather extreme opposite position that you articulated with "law enforcement are scumbags and thugs..." They could easily describe the more nuanced middle ground reality which if seen clearly, should be devastating to the whole idea. Even the US president is not trustworthy, for starters.

natch 9y ago

You're right, but I'm not sure you read what I said. >Two, there is no perfect system. Yeah you are agreeing with me here. I was debating whether to spell out that what I had in mind was the technical and mathematical parts of the system, but even that is impossible to get perfect. Adding in people, it is still impossible. Not more impossible. Still impossible. But we need to stop talking about how the technical part will be flawed. Yes it will be. But that's not the worst problem. The people part is the worst problem. Talking about the technical flaws is the wrong argument to make. Naive people will just think "well, let's have our smart nerds work hard on it, and they will figure it out" and therefore the argument makes no headway. And naive people elect congress people. And presidents. Who appoint judges. Etc. What the EFF needs imho is an argument that even the naive masses will understand. Not one that is vulnerable to bullshit talking points like "well if we can go to the moon, we can do this." On the being diplomatic point, yes probably that's the case. I just think they could choose more of a realistic stance somewhere between the position of this paper, which is fairy tales pretending everything is OK as long as it's inside the US borders, and the rather extreme opposite position that you articulated with "law enforcement are scumbags and thugs..." They could easily describe the more nuanced middle ground reality which if seen clearly, should be devastating to the whole idea. Even the US president is not trustworthy, for starters.