4 ms·

> This is nothing new. What we as citizens think of that is completely irrelevant. Unless the majority of the population would really care about encryption and

> This is nothing new. What we as citizens think of that is completely irrelevant. Unless the majority of the population would really care about encryption and it would influence the 4-yearly vote-thing (elections). You are contradicting yourself. Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic. As parent poster said we have the responsibility: it is to communicate this argument to people and also to be part of our own government.

bboygravity 7y ago
> Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic. No, I'm not. My point is that we (citizens) are not in charge of government. It's misleading to claim that we are. It doesn't matter whether "the people" are for or against encryption. It's irrelevant for political decision making (unless popular opinion on encryption threatens to influence elections, which right now it doesn't and probably won't ever). > it is to communicate this argument to people and also to be part of our own government. "We" (as in the majority of citizens) can't be part of our government. "We" can't even significantly influence government at all other than through elections. Popular political influence through elections only works for very limited very broad subjects that happen to be in fashion by the time an election takes place. Subjects unlike relatively specific things such as encryption. > we have the responsibility With the above in mind I don't agree. At all. You could try to explain the point of the parent poster to 1000's of people and convince them to agree. This would be a tremendous task and would politically change: nothing. At all. You could also try to convince them of the opposite. And this would also have 0 political effect. Even if everybody on HN did it. Even if everyone on here had the exact same opinion, arguments and same amazing sales skills.
- scandox 7y ago
  So you don't reckon representative democracy works at all. In which case what is there to talk about here? You should be out attending to the business of revolution, not yakking on forums about incremental change right? Personally at present I think representative democracy is working, but that people are very dishonest about what they really want.
  - bboygravity 7y ago
    > So you don't reckon representative democracy works at all. What do you mean by "works"? A violent dictatorship with a genocide here and there works perfectly fine, depending on your definition of "works". > In which case what is there to talk about here? Priorities. Should the priority be to discuss the importance of encryption. Or should the priority be to discuss the importance of means to influence decisions about encryption? > You should be out attending to the business of revolution, not yakking on forums about incremental change right? You mean literally losing a hand or an eye as a yellow vest? Or something like that? Nah. Meh, thanks. Not the best option I would say. > Personally at present I think representative democracy is working, Yeah. Again. I agree that it's "working". But without a definition of "working" or a benchmark that's an information-less statement. > but that people are very dishonest about what they really want. And you have hope that this will change? People can't know what they want, if they aren't honestly informed about what's going on around them.
    - scandox 7y ago
      Well I admit working is a poor term. Perhaps framing it as "working for me" or "least scary for me" is more honest. I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. I basically think I'll be dead within a few months of that emerging. Authoritarianism is my next greatest fear.
      - bboygravity 7y ago
        > I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. Any substantiation? My fear is the exact opposite (anything decided by "not us" is "not for us").
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      > You mean literally losing a hand or an eye as a yellow vest? Or something like that? Nah. Meh, thanks. Not the best option I would say. Tell that to the Hong Kong protesters.

bboygravity 7y ago

> Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic. No, I'm not. My point is that we (citizens) are not in charge of government. It's misleading to claim that we are. It doesn't matter whether "the people" are for or against encryption. It's irrelevant for political decision making (unless popular opinion on encryption threatens to influence elections, which right now it doesn't and probably won't ever). > it is to communicate this argument to people and also to be part of our own government. "We" (as in the majority of citizens) can't be part of our government. "We" can't even significantly influence government at all other than through elections. Popular political influence through elections only works for very limited very broad subjects that happen to be in fashion by the time an election takes place. Subjects unlike relatively specific things such as encryption. > we have the responsibility With the above in mind I don't agree. At all. You could try to explain the point of the parent poster to 1000's of people and convince them to agree. This would be a tremendous task and would politically change: nothing. At all. You could also try to convince them of the opposite. And this would also have 0 political effect. Even if everybody on HN did it. Even if everyone on here had the exact same opinion, arguments and same amazing sales skills.

scandox 7y ago
So you don't reckon representative democracy works at all. In which case what is there to talk about here? You should be out attending to the business of revolution, not yakking on forums about incremental change right? Personally at present I think representative democracy is working, but that people are very dishonest about what they really want.
- bboygravity 7y ago
  > So you don't reckon representative democracy works at all. What do you mean by "works"? A violent dictatorship with a genocide here and there works perfectly fine, depending on your definition of "works". > In which case what is there to talk about here? Priorities. Should the priority be to discuss the importance of encryption. Or should the priority be to discuss the importance of means to influence decisions about encryption? > You should be out attending to the business of revolution, not yakking on forums about incremental change right? You mean literally losing a hand or an eye as a yellow vest? Or something like that? Nah. Meh, thanks. Not the best option I would say. > Personally at present I think representative democracy is working, Yeah. Again. I agree that it's "working". But without a definition of "working" or a benchmark that's an information-less statement. > but that people are very dishonest about what they really want. And you have hope that this will change? People can't know what they want, if they aren't honestly informed about what's going on around them.
  - scandox 7y ago
    Well I admit working is a poor term. Perhaps framing it as "working for me" or "least scary for me" is more honest. I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. I basically think I'll be dead within a few months of that emerging. Authoritarianism is my next greatest fear.
    - bboygravity 7y ago
      > I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. Any substantiation? My fear is the exact opposite (anything decided by "not us" is "not for us").
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    > You mean literally losing a hand or an eye as a yellow vest? Or something like that? Nah. Meh, thanks. Not the best option I would say. Tell that to the Hong Kong protesters.