8 ms·

> They can't be trusted with these powers. If they want to catch criminals, they should have to go out there and do real police work instead of imposing their a

> They can't be trusted with these powers. If they want to catch criminals, they should have to go out there and do real police work instead of imposing their abusive surveillance on everyone. Real police work like collecting records for transactions to piece together how a crime happened?

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yes. They should have to do it in person, not by pressing some button on a computer. It should be hard.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Why isn't the future digital for the police? You're creating arbitrary obstacles for no reason. Artifically handicapping the police and preventing them from doing their jobs without really explaining your basis for drawing the line there.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    In free societies people have a right to privacy. The government should not have access to any information at all unless there's a good reason. Even then, their access should be as limited as possible. If that enables more crime, so be it. That's the price we pay for freedom. Governments have proven again and again they won't respect these rights. So people will make subversive technology to defeat them. Cryptography has that kind of power. They'll have to increase their tyranny in order to stop it. Is there a limit to how tyrannical they're willing to become in order to control their subjects? We'll find out.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      That's quite a game to play, one of mutually assured destruction. I suggest that instead technology be devised to help expose the information necessary to pursue crime and criminality under mutually reasonably circumstances. Otherwise you're just surrendering to mad-max anarchy.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > That's quite a game to play, one of mutually assured destruction. I don't think so. These are arms races and they happen all the time, even in nature. This particular struggle is about principles. For example: many people, myself included, think advertising is morally wrong. Are we going to ask the billion dollar industry to cease and desist? That'd be pointless. Better to make ad blocking technology that solves the problem whether they want it or not. They develop countermeasures, people develop countermeasures against their countermeasures. It goes on and on. We're winning so far. In this case, it's a politico-technological arms race. People don't agree with whatever it is the government's doing so they make technology that prevents them from doing it. Government makes new laws to neutralize the technology. People make new technology to work around the new laws. And so on. With every iteration, the government must become more tyrannical in order to maintain the same power it previously enjoyed. Technologies such as Monero actually bring the world closer to the principles the US was founded on, principles it apparently forgot about. Will the US remember its roots? Or will it turn into China? That's the political choice the existence of this technology forces the government to make. > I suggest that instead technology be devised to help expose the information necessary to pursue crime and criminality under mutually reasonably circumstances. That's idealistic. Every day governments prove that they are not fit to have this power. That they'll twist those circumstances until they are no longer mutually reasonable. They are corrupt. They will abuse this access for personal reasons. Global surveillance personnel are frequently caught spying on the people they know for personal gain, including their spouses. I refuse to give them any power at all if it means even one person will be abused. Suffering at the hands of crime is one thing, suffering at the hands of the people who were supposed to protect you is an indignity without measure.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Yes. They should have to do it in person, not by pressing some button on a computer. It should be hard.

arcticbull 5y ago
Why isn't the future digital for the police? You're creating arbitrary obstacles for no reason. Artifically handicapping the police and preventing them from doing their jobs without really explaining your basis for drawing the line there.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  In free societies people have a right to privacy. The government should not have access to any information at all unless there's a good reason. Even then, their access should be as limited as possible. If that enables more crime, so be it. That's the price we pay for freedom. Governments have proven again and again they won't respect these rights. So people will make subversive technology to defeat them. Cryptography has that kind of power. They'll have to increase their tyranny in order to stop it. Is there a limit to how tyrannical they're willing to become in order to control their subjects? We'll find out.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    That's quite a game to play, one of mutually assured destruction. I suggest that instead technology be devised to help expose the information necessary to pursue crime and criminality under mutually reasonably circumstances. Otherwise you're just surrendering to mad-max anarchy.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > That's quite a game to play, one of mutually assured destruction. I don't think so. These are arms races and they happen all the time, even in nature. This particular struggle is about principles. For example: many people, myself included, think advertising is morally wrong. Are we going to ask the billion dollar industry to cease and desist? That'd be pointless. Better to make ad blocking technology that solves the problem whether they want it or not. They develop countermeasures, people develop countermeasures against their countermeasures. It goes on and on. We're winning so far. In this case, it's a politico-technological arms race. People don't agree with whatever it is the government's doing so they make technology that prevents them from doing it. Government makes new laws to neutralize the technology. People make new technology to work around the new laws. And so on. With every iteration, the government must become more tyrannical in order to maintain the same power it previously enjoyed. Technologies such as Monero actually bring the world closer to the principles the US was founded on, principles it apparently forgot about. Will the US remember its roots? Or will it turn into China? That's the political choice the existence of this technology forces the government to make. > I suggest that instead technology be devised to help expose the information necessary to pursue crime and criminality under mutually reasonably circumstances. That's idealistic. Every day governments prove that they are not fit to have this power. That they'll twist those circumstances until they are no longer mutually reasonable. They are corrupt. They will abuse this access for personal reasons. Global surveillance personnel are frequently caught spying on the people they know for personal gain, including their spouses. I refuse to give them any power at all if it means even one person will be abused. Suffering at the hands of crime is one thing, suffering at the hands of the people who were supposed to protect you is an indignity without measure.