4 ms·

At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that ma

At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way?

craftyguy 8y ago
Probably at the point where elected officials start to care. They won't care until their voters care, and most voters don't seem to care about or understand the issue here since it does not affect most of them in any meaningful/measurable way.
- noobermin 8y ago
  I think they care. A majority of the country did not want NN to be repealed but it was. The problem is their vote means little and understandably, many tune out and don't vote or choose between lesser of two evils.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    A majority of the country has no idea what new neutrality is nor do they care. The only way you get to polls indicating a preference either way is by describing the regulations to the recipient first.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I dunno, despite the supposed popularity of repealing the Affordable Care Act, the GOP, having control of all parts of the legislative process, couldn't get it done.
bodas 8y ago
So we should give up trying to help people in oppressive countries and just shop them to the authorities?
EvilEndures 8y ago
> At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way? Law enforcement and government are addicted to power to an unhealthy degree. Convincing people to voluntarily give up power is rarely successful. You seem to believe majority support is enough to make something happen. It is not. The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support. Yet we have neither.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  After President Franklin Pierce's child died gruesomely in a train wreck, it was believed, even by his own wife and family, that it was God's punishment for him seeking authority and power. I didn't live in the past, but my reading of it leads me to believe that, at least through US history, it seemed that the public consciousness in the past has had very real skepticism of authority. Perhaps that is the opposite today in many parts of the developed world. For example, a German guy recently looked me dead in the eye, smiled, and said sincerely: "But why would anybody not trust their government?"
  - jetti 8y ago
    Pierce was part of the first generation of U.S citizens and would have grown up with stories of British ruled colonies, which could have helped foster the skepticism of authority you mention.
- gerdesj 8y ago
  The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support. [HR] Yet we have neither. Brexit was decided on an embarrassingly close vote: 51.9% So we have two seemingly popular things that haven't happened and one that has happened but was not so popular (but it turns out that it was more popular than was suspected by anyone beforehand). I'm afraid that is politics. If it helps, I am not a fan of Brexit but will have to live with it anyway. There is no conspiracy and I don't think that it is fair to accuse your police and government of being arseholes (to put words in your mouth!) Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works. To be fair though, there is also nothing wrong with getting a good rant in on HN. If you feel really strongly about healthcare, why not emigrate to the UK? Our NHS is bloody amazing and only costs: https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay - roughly 12% of your salary. There is a lower band and an upper band so it is not 12% of everything you earn and it also covers unemployment payments and other things.
stale2002 8y ago
The opinions of politicians can change on a whim. Changing the law means nothing if it gets changed back the following decade. Technical solutions tend to be more permanent. Your solution is equivalent to saying "why are we focused so much on pretecting ourselves from hackers? We should instead change society such that nobody even WANTS to be a hacker!"
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I guess when we decide to stop complaining about technically inept government, and start working for government and running for office ourselves.
jMyles 8y ago
> At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way? This sounds like a highly irresponsible tactic if your actual goal is to help people. There is no reason to believe that the state will afford the kind of changes you're describing, and even if it does, no reason to believe that it will obey the new laws in question. While you are busy keeping yourself safe by staying within the lines of a tyrannical coloring book, real people are suffering the consequences of surveillance. Even if this were possible: why constrain the internet, whose constituency is international and impetus is mathematical, to the confines of some ridiculous tantrum-throwing government and its childish ideas of control? What's the benefit?

At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way?

craftyguy 8y ago

Probably at the point where elected officials start to care. They won't care until their voters care, and most voters don't seem to care about or understand the issue here since it does not affect most of them in any meaningful/measurable way.

noobermin 8y ago
I think they care. A majority of the country did not want NN to be repealed but it was. The problem is their vote means little and understandably, many tune out and don't vote or choose between lesser of two evils.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  A majority of the country has no idea what new neutrality is nor do they care. The only way you get to polls indicating a preference either way is by describing the regulations to the recipient first.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I dunno, despite the supposed popularity of repealing the Affordable Care Act, the GOP, having control of all parts of the legislative process, couldn't get it done.

bodas 8y ago

So we should give up trying to help people in oppressive countries and just shop them to the authorities?

EvilEndures 8y ago

> At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way? Law enforcement and government are addicted to power to an unhealthy degree. Convincing people to voluntarily give up power is rarely successful. You seem to believe majority support is enough to make something happen. It is not. The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support. Yet we have neither.

wallace_f 8y ago
After President Franklin Pierce's child died gruesomely in a train wreck, it was believed, even by his own wife and family, that it was God's punishment for him seeking authority and power. I didn't live in the past, but my reading of it leads me to believe that, at least through US history, it seemed that the public consciousness in the past has had very real skepticism of authority. Perhaps that is the opposite today in many parts of the developed world. For example, a German guy recently looked me dead in the eye, smiled, and said sincerely: "But why would anybody not trust their government?"
- jetti 8y ago
  Pierce was part of the first generation of U.S citizens and would have grown up with stories of British ruled colonies, which could have helped foster the skepticism of authority you mention.
gerdesj 8y ago
The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support. [HR] Yet we have neither. Brexit was decided on an embarrassingly close vote: 51.9% So we have two seemingly popular things that haven't happened and one that has happened but was not so popular (but it turns out that it was more popular than was suspected by anyone beforehand). I'm afraid that is politics. If it helps, I am not a fan of Brexit but will have to live with it anyway. There is no conspiracy and I don't think that it is fair to accuse your police and government of being arseholes (to put words in your mouth!) Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works. To be fair though, there is also nothing wrong with getting a good rant in on HN. If you feel really strongly about healthcare, why not emigrate to the UK? Our NHS is bloody amazing and only costs: https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/how-much-you-pay - roughly 12% of your salary. There is a lower band and an upper band so it is not 12% of everything you earn and it also covers unemployment payments and other things.

stale2002 8y ago

The opinions of politicians can change on a whim. Changing the law means nothing if it gets changed back the following decade. Technical solutions tend to be more permanent. Your solution is equivalent to saying "why are we focused so much on pretecting ourselves from hackers? We should instead change society such that nobody even WANTS to be a hacker!"

s73v3r_ 8y ago

I guess when we decide to stop complaining about technically inept government, and start working for government and running for office ourselves.

jMyles 8y ago

> At what point does the technical community stop trying to technically interfere with the efforts of law enforcement, and start trying to change the laws that make law enforcement behave this way? This sounds like a highly irresponsible tactic if your actual goal is to help people. There is no reason to believe that the state will afford the kind of changes you're describing, and even if it does, no reason to believe that it will obey the new laws in question. While you are busy keeping yourself safe by staying within the lines of a tyrannical coloring book, real people are suffering the consequences of surveillance. Even if this were possible: why constrain the internet, whose constituency is international and impetus is mathematical, to the confines of some ridiculous tantrum-throwing government and its childish ideas of control? What's the benefit?