6 ms·

it can be summed up in this citation: > The logic of catching a few evil actors by denying the cloak of privacy to everyone will inexorably expand to more and

it can be summed up in this citation: > The logic of catching a few evil actors by denying the cloak of privacy to everyone will inexorably expand to more and more areas that powerful societal factions want to target.

sharken 5y ago
I see the outline of a public change in attitude towards this sentiment. With War on Terror and also War on Drugs everyone bought into the premise. Now twenty years later it's more of a stalemate than anything else. Then came the Corona epidemic where most accepted very serious limits in their freedom, e.g. Ireland introduced curfew. Now Apple is trying to introduce surveillance of your device. I believe that this idea from Apple is a step too far, in that the public will not accept it on any terms. Apple has long been promoting privacy, but now they also want to promote surveillance. They can choose one but not both, which is the dilemma Apple is in. So my hope is that the public will no longer accept overreaction due to a large-scale event and it starts with Apple and phone privacy.
- atoav 5y ago
  > With War on Terror and also War on Drugs everyone bought into the premise. I was a teenager when the "War on Terror" was announced and even back then I thought that this is a silly concept, because: 1) Terror is a concept. How can you fight and win a war against a concept? 2) The goal of Terror is to use violence and fear to rally a political point. If we change our entire way of living because of terrorists, doesn't that somehow mean we give them more leaverage over our way of living than we should? As it now turned out, the whole "War on Terror" didn't work out, couldn't have worked out etc. People are kinda fed up with this "we all have to give up $freedom to gain a slight edge against $virtual_threat". I mean there are even people who wouldn't give up a bit of comfort for a real and imidiate threat like Covid. Lies have consequences. Big lies have big consequences.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    Winning war on Terror is easy. Become the source of terror. There are no terrorist possible in feudal states. Because acts of terrorism back then would be just a drop in the bucket. And any benefit would quickly disappear in ensuing retaliation.
    - atoav 5y ago
      Terrorism is the attempt to reach political goals through acts of violence meant to stoke fear. You don't get rid of terrorism by choosing a power structure where terror is the norm. I'd say you can never get rid of terror per se until you establish absolute power and absolute control. That means any free society has to accept a certain amount of terrorism and therefore has to focus work on preventing root causes of terrorism as well as preventing the fallout a single terrorist attack can have.
      - Ygg2 5y ago
        > You don't get rid of terrorism by choosing a power structure where terror is the norm. Terrorism is using violence to achieve political aims. If state is built on terror and control, then others can't use it against it, since state has near monopoly on that.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    It is clear that nobody buys in to the premise of the War on X because usually the premise is senseless. There is no connection at all between 9/11 and the necessity for the US to have launched what turned out to be a 20 year occupation of Afghanistan. None. The punishment and crime are not just disconnected but absurdly independent of each other. And the response did far more damage than anything else to American freedoms. There is a probably a nice write-up somewhere of how that is the point; some sort of tribe bonding exercise or something. Showing that people pull together as a community because they are a community rather than because of a rational reason. The fact that the premise is farcical isn't a factor. Don't expect logical consistency.
    - 5y ago
squarefoot 5y ago
> it can be summed up in this citation: And this cartoon: https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg
- throw0101a 5y ago
  * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

sharken 5y ago

I see the outline of a public change in attitude towards this sentiment. With War on Terror and also War on Drugs everyone bought into the premise. Now twenty years later it's more of a stalemate than anything else. Then came the Corona epidemic where most accepted very serious limits in their freedom, e.g. Ireland introduced curfew. Now Apple is trying to introduce surveillance of your device. I believe that this idea from Apple is a step too far, in that the public will not accept it on any terms. Apple has long been promoting privacy, but now they also want to promote surveillance. They can choose one but not both, which is the dilemma Apple is in. So my hope is that the public will no longer accept overreaction due to a large-scale event and it starts with Apple and phone privacy.

atoav 5y ago
> With War on Terror and also War on Drugs everyone bought into the premise. I was a teenager when the "War on Terror" was announced and even back then I thought that this is a silly concept, because: 1) Terror is a concept. How can you fight and win a war against a concept? 2) The goal of Terror is to use violence and fear to rally a political point. If we change our entire way of living because of terrorists, doesn't that somehow mean we give them more leaverage over our way of living than we should? As it now turned out, the whole "War on Terror" didn't work out, couldn't have worked out etc. People are kinda fed up with this "we all have to give up $freedom to gain a slight edge against $virtual_threat". I mean there are even people who wouldn't give up a bit of comfort for a real and imidiate threat like Covid. Lies have consequences. Big lies have big consequences.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  Winning war on Terror is easy. Become the source of terror. There are no terrorist possible in feudal states. Because acts of terrorism back then would be just a drop in the bucket. And any benefit would quickly disappear in ensuing retaliation.
  - atoav 5y ago
    Terrorism is the attempt to reach political goals through acts of violence meant to stoke fear. You don't get rid of terrorism by choosing a power structure where terror is the norm. I'd say you can never get rid of terror per se until you establish absolute power and absolute control. That means any free society has to accept a certain amount of terrorism and therefore has to focus work on preventing root causes of terrorism as well as preventing the fallout a single terrorist attack can have.
    - Ygg2 5y ago
      > You don't get rid of terrorism by choosing a power structure where terror is the norm. Terrorism is using violence to achieve political aims. If state is built on terror and control, then others can't use it against it, since state has near monopoly on that.
- roenxi 5y ago
  It is clear that nobody buys in to the premise of the War on X because usually the premise is senseless. There is no connection at all between 9/11 and the necessity for the US to have launched what turned out to be a 20 year occupation of Afghanistan. None. The punishment and crime are not just disconnected but absurdly independent of each other. And the response did far more damage than anything else to American freedoms. There is a probably a nice write-up somewhere of how that is the point; some sort of tribe bonding exercise or something. Showing that people pull together as a community because they are a community rather than because of a rational reason. The fact that the premise is farcical isn't a factor. Don't expect logical consistency.
  - 5y ago

squarefoot 5y ago

> it can be summed up in this citation: And this cartoon: https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg https://i.redd.it/ifb8agngc7dy.jpg

throw0101a 5y ago
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...