4 ms·

If you're so scared about your government that your activity might get you thrown away for life and it doesn't involve murdering someone, then you need better g

If you're so scared about your government that your activity might get you thrown away for life and it doesn't involve murdering someone, then you need better government, not better security because those kinds of governments will just say you murdered someone without any proof and lock you up or kill you anyway if they don't like you.

loughnane 6y ago
I know of no government ever that has been so benevolent that its citizens didn't benefit from privacy and security.
- knobcore 6y ago
  This implies that said governments are bad. Or have the perception of it. You know who benefits from VPNs, privacy, and security? The proud boys. Russia. China. Steve Bannon. And their bots, that's who. They are a threat to civil society at present, and they're using that very privacy and security to organize to destroy the thing you're trying to "protect" by drinking Barlow's kool-aid.
  - knobcore 6y ago
    I prefer the idea of internet governance via third party instead of the state. Flip it on it's head, where instead of government spying on everyone, we're in control of the surveillance democratically through consensus. But there needs to be some kind of governance of some kind.
  - loughnane 6y ago
    Those people also benefit from cash, opaque walls, and freedom of speech. That bad people benefit from something is hardly a damning case against it.
BlueScreenDeath 6y ago
Like they did to Ross Ulbricht? [1] https://freeross.org/real-untold-story/ https://freeross.org/real-untold-story/
glitcher 6y ago
Better government and better security are not mutually exclusive. You can work towards both simultaneously, and claiming that one negates the other is a logical fallacy.
- knobcore 6y ago
  Government exists solely for the purpose of negating security and life of bad actors who want to take away your rights. That is it's function, via the social contract. That can only be broken in one of two ways. Either people don't care enough or they grow so distrustful of it that they don't participate in it or keep it in check. When things like that happen you get elected officials decided by less than 40% of the country, anti-maskers, and asymmetric warfare in the streets to combat "the man". It's untenable.
- glitcher 6y ago
  And actually, the latest xkcd says it better than me: https://xkcd.com/2368/ https://xkcd.com/2368/
  - knobcore 6y ago
    I see heavy security with zero recourse by anyone to break it and anonymity is the top single problem with the Internet, not the lack of it. We should all have to log on with our identification through a blanket "know your customer" law like they do to combat money laundering in banks, and our country of origin at least should be displayed. Other than that... You want encryption? Fine, but if your id links you to 4chan offshoots planning domestic terror attacks i should be able to report your address to the authorities and there should be social repercussions for bad behavior. And I need to know if you're Russian or from the US and that you're human before I engage in US politics with you. Music got worse since Napster, Sean Parker was the guy who got Zuckerberg funded, Google is evil, and John Perry Barlow is dead. Wake up.
    - glitcher 6y ago
      I respectfully disagree with most of this. The last part was a bit all over the place though, not sure where exactly you were going. Others who know history much better than me are far better equipped to debate against your position. If you really want a challenge, I would invite you to reply to the top comment in this thread by Jon_Lowtek to help open a discussion on the deeper merits of your position. For me personally, your arguments aren't very persuasive.

loughnane 6y ago

I know of no government ever that has been so benevolent that its citizens didn't benefit from privacy and security.

knobcore 6y ago
This implies that said governments are bad. Or have the perception of it. You know who benefits from VPNs, privacy, and security? The proud boys. Russia. China. Steve Bannon. And their bots, that's who. They are a threat to civil society at present, and they're using that very privacy and security to organize to destroy the thing you're trying to "protect" by drinking Barlow's kool-aid.
- knobcore 6y ago
  I prefer the idea of internet governance via third party instead of the state. Flip it on it's head, where instead of government spying on everyone, we're in control of the surveillance democratically through consensus. But there needs to be some kind of governance of some kind.
- loughnane 6y ago
  Those people also benefit from cash, opaque walls, and freedom of speech. That bad people benefit from something is hardly a damning case against it.

BlueScreenDeath 6y ago

Like they did to Ross Ulbricht? [1] https://freeross.org/real-untold-story/ https://freeross.org/real-untold-story/

glitcher 6y ago

Better government and better security are not mutually exclusive. You can work towards both simultaneously, and claiming that one negates the other is a logical fallacy.

knobcore 6y ago
Government exists solely for the purpose of negating security and life of bad actors who want to take away your rights. That is it's function, via the social contract. That can only be broken in one of two ways. Either people don't care enough or they grow so distrustful of it that they don't participate in it or keep it in check. When things like that happen you get elected officials decided by less than 40% of the country, anti-maskers, and asymmetric warfare in the streets to combat "the man". It's untenable.
glitcher 6y ago
And actually, the latest xkcd says it better than me: https://xkcd.com/2368/ https://xkcd.com/2368/
- knobcore 6y ago
  I see heavy security with zero recourse by anyone to break it and anonymity is the top single problem with the Internet, not the lack of it. We should all have to log on with our identification through a blanket "know your customer" law like they do to combat money laundering in banks, and our country of origin at least should be displayed. Other than that... You want encryption? Fine, but if your id links you to 4chan offshoots planning domestic terror attacks i should be able to report your address to the authorities and there should be social repercussions for bad behavior. And I need to know if you're Russian or from the US and that you're human before I engage in US politics with you. Music got worse since Napster, Sean Parker was the guy who got Zuckerberg funded, Google is evil, and John Perry Barlow is dead. Wake up.
  - glitcher 6y ago
    I respectfully disagree with most of this. The last part was a bit all over the place though, not sure where exactly you were going. Others who know history much better than me are far better equipped to debate against your position. If you really want a challenge, I would invite you to reply to the top comment in this thread by Jon_Lowtek to help open a discussion on the deeper merits of your position. For me personally, your arguments aren't very persuasive.