3 ms·
This is the argument I've made to people over the last few years, and I think is far better and more substantial then the technical based ones that so typically
by xoa 7y ago
This is the argument I've made to people over the last few years, and I think is far better and more substantial then the technical based ones that so typically come up (and have in the comments here already, the whole "well a key will of course leak thing"). It's risky and unnecessary to go to technical arguments for something that's a moral matter, because technology changes. If you base your entire opposition around the key, what if at some point someone does have an entirely formally verified stack and strong measures and can reasonably argue that keys aren't going to leak? Apple's master key for example, it becoming available would be an enormous thing for both criminals and ordinary owners of iOS devices. Yet while there have been plenty of flaws that have been exploited to bypass a need for it, the private root key remains unleaked.
The real question that I would want to see some Congress person put to agencies is
>"Do you believe there should be any inherent limits at all? If we developed the technology someday to read people's minds, should it be permissible to go through their brains with a warrant? It would certainly let you find the guilty of some 'crimes', where for 'crimes' we should keep in mind that gay sex and interracial relations were felonies in the near past."
I mean that's the real thing, if security agencies could root through people's brains I see no need to beat around the bush that likely at least a few truly horrific crimes would be stopped or solved. There would be children saved, terrorists stopped, murderers caught. But I think not just the abuse of it, but even the use of it to eliminate any gray area for a human society would be so horrific that it's just plain not worth it. That yes, some children will be abused/kill, some murderers will escape, some terrorists succeed, and that really is the price we need to pay. That we should try to reduce it as much as possible but only in opposition to strong privacy and an inviolable personal sphere. And that should include artificial augmentations to our minds, which typical mobile devices are already arguably at the point of.
The incentive structures right now for law enforcement agencies and intel agencies remains geared always towards more more more, and paying attention to singular big harms rather then small harms across enormous swaths of the population. It hasn't evolved much from decades and centuries in the past arguably. I think that's the ground to fight on though, will they argue that total erasure of the private sphere is worth it? Will the public agree? I think the answer is no, and with that established it's a lot easier to argue back against "think of the children/terrorists/drugs" typical attack.
- ickwabe 7y agoWell put. To wander a bit off topic, but I feel this is a specific example of a general problem in free societies. There is no perfect safety without perfect surveillance. In my opinion, it is necessary to be at peace with the fact that there will be a certain level of bad outcomes in exchange for the protection of general freedoms. There will be crime, murder, kidnappings, embezzlement, death by neglect, etc. It is unavoidable absent a perfect surveillance state. I, for one, am willing to accept risks. Others will disagree. But I think that in a perfect surveillance society you are also pefectly stagnant.
- bradknowles 7y agoThere will be no perfect safety. Period. There will be no perfect surveillance. Period. Humans are humans, and inherently imperfect. Until all humans are eliminated, there will be no perfect ... anything.
- jecxjo 7y agoThe next question needs to be (assuming they feel it should be allowed) is do they feel there should be allowances for someone to be above this law? In our current climate we are seeing criminal looking behavior in the US by people within the Executive branch of the government. They have been citing Presidential Privilege but if mind reading became legal there would be multiple issues here. This law would rid us of the last safe harbor, your own mind. At that point allowing some individuals the ability to skirt this law would create a class definition of ultimate scale. Those who are allowed to keep their own thoughts to themselves and those who aren't allowed to.
- desc 7y ago> It's risky and unnecessary to go to technical arguments for something that's a moral matter, because technology changes. True. > If you base your entire opposition around the key, what if at some point someone does have an entirely formally verified stack and strong measures and can reasonably argue that keys aren't going to leak? Irrelevant, since formally proving the stack says absolutely nothing about compromising the system at a human level, and 'reasonably argue' does not mean 'proving that the key cannot leak'. The key will always leak. It's just a matter of when. There will never be any technical solution to that, and it's not a technical problem. It is a hole which fundamentally cannot be plugged, and the hole is people. Technology has nothing to do with this. >>"Do you believe there should be any inherent limits at all? If we developed the technology someday to read people's minds, should it be permissible to go through their brains with a warrant? It would certainly let you find the guilty of some 'crimes', where for 'crimes' we should keep in mind that gay sex and interracial relations were felonies in the near past." But that's always a question of legality, not technical capability. Legislation is all about where we draw lines. However, it is entirely true that legislation (or rather, the 'undefined behaviour' in it) tends to be abused a great deal before it can be shut down. The argument that the key will leak is not technical, and strictly speaking, nor is the argument that 'technology may one day do this and then where would we be?'. But one is a lot less speculative than the other, and admits no mitigations.