4 ms·

Growing up as the typical nerd, I used to think that trust was something that needed to be eliminated, that other people weren't worthy of trust and that we all

by willeh 6y ago

Growing up as the typical nerd, I used to think that trust was something that needed to be eliminated, that other people weren't worthy of trust and that we all ought to be using TOR, bitcoin, I2P. All our chats be over XMPP with OTR messaging. But growing up, and getting beyond the world of early adulthood I've come to realise that most people can be trusted most of the time. Who doesn't instinctively look away when someone is typing in a password, most bosses aren't trying to scam you out of your pay check. In fact most people instinctively help others - even giving them a little push along. As amazing, magical and occasionally necessary things like TOR, bitcoin and I2P are what truly is wonderful is that basic trust, that small but significant ∆, much more than clever algorithms and data structures is what makes our lives work.

dogman144 6y ago
What you're missing is that software enables entities you shouldn't trust to work at scale in a way that does make it an issue. Staying very high level, we're primed to think of privacy in human-defined terms in a way. Your mom snooping over your shoulder on what you're typing/viewing at age 12 on your first PC is the cause. As a result, with tech privacy, we do a notional looking up and looking around, like you are, to evaluate it... ok, I know 20 people have my finsta, I only give out my number to like less than 2 people a year, I don't have a google account so no need to clear my cookies or use a VPN, and so on... What you're not accounting for that: - the very small amount of stuff you do let leak out because "most people can be trusted most of the time" gets ingested by that "most" delta. There is one or few very untrustworthy entities, you're right, but they still touch your online presence. This is the difference maker because of the scale these entities can work at (BlueKai is an example). - Shadow contacts, and so on, are a thing. You get sucked in either way by other's bad behavior
aloisdg 6y ago
> In fact most people instinctively help others - even giving them a little push along. You may like the book Mutual Aid by Kropotkin.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
I agree with your observation, most people are nice. What I realised growing up is that every day someone is forced to give a percentage or their profits or face jail time, someone gets killed because we socialise the cost of war, people get spied on by state actors and surveillance systems. All of this despite most people being nice. The centralisation of power is a weakness and it's being exploited by those who are not nice.
solosoyokaze 6y ago
I would say in our capitalistic system you should have an inherent distrust of your communications channels. Google is reading your Gmail, Facebook is tracking the amount of time you spend looking at any image on its services, many third parties are trying to reverse your identity as you browse. All to sell or otherwise monetize your data. There are many bad actors out there government and commercial.
- alentist 6y ago
  That is hardly unique to a "capitalistic system", as history has repeatedly shown.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    We live in a capitalistic system today, these are some of its properties. I said nothing about trust in other systems.
    - alentist 6y ago
      Thanks for clarifying.
- Proven 6y ago
  Nonsense. Capitalism is the only system in which something that is your property belongs only to you. > Google is reading your email Did you voluntarily register, use their service and let them access to your data, because you were too cheap to pay $5/mo or host your own? How do you figure they can possibly provide this free service to billions of people? Would this so called abuse continue if you were to delete your Google account? > There are many bad actors out there government and commercial. There is no public government in free market capitalism. It the only system in which you can protect your property from both government and businesses.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> I used to think that trust was something that needed to be eliminated ... I've come to realise that most people can be trusted most of the time You are confusing the NEED to trust with the ABILITY to trust - and the are almost opposite things in some regards. You need to trust car drivers to stop at a traffic light not to run over you. This is disempowering: your life is in their hands. If we can remove the need to trust drivers (e.g. with automatic braking) it's good. If you CAN trust your neighbor to water your plants when you are away this is empowering. You can freely choose what to do. As a side note, traditional anarchists are all about mutual aid and solidarity, while "anarcho-capitalists" support selfishness (links below) (By the way, it's written Tor, not TOR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness
fsflover 6y ago
This is completely missing the point of why one should be anonymous and use I2P etc. Surveillance harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.

by willeh 6y ago

dogman144 6y ago

What you're missing is that software enables entities you shouldn't trust to work at scale in a way that does make it an issue. Staying very high level, we're primed to think of privacy in human-defined terms in a way. Your mom snooping over your shoulder on what you're typing/viewing at age 12 on your first PC is the cause. As a result, with tech privacy, we do a notional looking up and looking around, like you are, to evaluate it... ok, I know 20 people have my finsta, I only give out my number to like less than 2 people a year, I don't have a google account so no need to clear my cookies or use a VPN, and so on... What you're not accounting for that: - the very small amount of stuff you do let leak out because "most people can be trusted most of the time" gets ingested by that "most" delta. There is one or few very untrustworthy entities, you're right, but they still touch your online presence. This is the difference maker because of the scale these entities can work at (BlueKai is an example). - Shadow contacts, and so on, are a thing. You get sucked in either way by other's bad behavior

aloisdg 6y ago

> In fact most people instinctively help others - even giving them a little push along. You may like the book Mutual Aid by Kropotkin.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

I agree with your observation, most people are nice. What I realised growing up is that every day someone is forced to give a percentage or their profits or face jail time, someone gets killed because we socialise the cost of war, people get spied on by state actors and surveillance systems. All of this despite most people being nice. The centralisation of power is a weakness and it's being exploited by those who are not nice.

solosoyokaze 6y ago

I would say in our capitalistic system you should have an inherent distrust of your communications channels. Google is reading your Gmail, Facebook is tracking the amount of time you spend looking at any image on its services, many third parties are trying to reverse your identity as you browse. All to sell or otherwise monetize your data. There are many bad actors out there government and commercial.

alentist 6y ago
That is hardly unique to a "capitalistic system", as history has repeatedly shown.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  We live in a capitalistic system today, these are some of its properties. I said nothing about trust in other systems.
  - alentist 6y ago
    Thanks for clarifying.
Proven 6y ago
Nonsense. Capitalism is the only system in which something that is your property belongs only to you. > Google is reading your email Did you voluntarily register, use their service and let them access to your data, because you were too cheap to pay $5/mo or host your own? How do you figure they can possibly provide this free service to billions of people? Would this so called abuse continue if you were to delete your Google account? > There are many bad actors out there government and commercial. There is no public government in free market capitalism. It the only system in which you can protect your property from both government and businesses.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

> I used to think that trust was something that needed to be eliminated ... I've come to realise that most people can be trusted most of the time You are confusing the NEED to trust with the ABILITY to trust - and the are almost opposite things in some regards. You need to trust car drivers to stop at a traffic light not to run over you. This is disempowering: your life is in their hands. If we can remove the need to trust drivers (e.g. with automatic braking) it's good. If you CAN trust your neighbor to water your plants when you are away this is empowering. You can freely choose what to do. As a side note, traditional anarchists are all about mutual aid and solidarity, while "anarcho-capitalists" support selfishness (links below) (By the way, it's written Tor, not TOR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

fsflover 6y ago

This is completely missing the point of why one should be anonymous and use I2P etc. Surveillance harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.