3 ms·

Problem is, this is simply assuming that governments can't do that already. Anyone thinks that if president Xi wants to know who has photos of the Dalai, Apple

Problem is, this is simply assuming that governments can't do that already. Anyone thinks that if president Xi wants to know who has photos of the Dalai, Apple is going to say no to any demand they make? Apple will be more than happy to oblige; they will censor, remotely disable apps, and push silent updates with location tracking and the like. I am quite sure this has already happened. This is actually why I dislike when "libertarian" organizations are all too happy to let the corporations have practically unlimited surveillance power, but when the democratically-elected government tries to do it on a smaller, specific scale? Then no, that shall not pass! Government bad! Well, I have some news. If your democratically-elected government is really ever going to turn Stasi/Fascist, Apple is not going to stand up to it, and they are going to be all too happy to share your data with them. Your government may right now still have some decency left, which means that they send a legal request to Apple instead of a secret letter from a three-letter-agency, but that is not going to be the case for a more evil one. The solution for sure involves preventing these corporations from having surveillance power, _in part by using government regulation_ since apparently citizens do not seem to understand the problem. A cultural change is also required, so that pervasive surveillance by corporations stops being seen as normal. Then when the government wants to do it they will have to roll their classy-old own spy tech, rather than just asking for the data to any corporation. This is yet another area where the market, "vote with your wallet" or "self-regulation" by the corporations themselves is not going to cut it. They need to be forced to avoid having access to this much data about their users.

kragen 5y ago
> The solution for sure involves preventing these corporations from having surveillance power, in part by using government regulation Well, certainly it is necessary to prevent those corporations from having surveillance power, because you're right that it's irresistible for governments to abuse it; but I suggest you find a strategy that doesn't rely on your opponent surrendering while he is in a superior strategic position. (While I disagree with your comment, I think it adds to the discussion, so I deplore the vandals who are downvoting it as if it were spam.) Historically, the motto has been, "Cypherpunks write code." Today, that's not enough; we need hardware.
uniqueuid 5y ago
I do agree that (seemingly paradoxically) privacy regulation is the key to preventing overbearing state and corporate spying. The paper actually has a few nice things to say on this. Among other passages: > Economics cannot be ignored. One way that democratic societies protect their citizens against the ever-present danger of government intrusion is by making search expensive. In the US, there are several mechanisms that do this, including the onerous process of applying for a wiretap warrant (which for criminal cases must be essentially a “last resort” investigative tool) and imposition of requirements such as “minimization” (law enforcement not listening or taping if the communication does not pertain to criminal activity). These raise the cost of wiretapping. > By contrast, a general CSS system makes all material cheaply accessible to government agents. It eliminates the requirement of physical access to the devices. It can be configured to scan any file on every device. I think the economics-based approach is very valuable here, especially because it is comparable across forms of government.
revolvingocelot 5y ago
It's not about whether governments can do it, it's how easily it's accomplished. If it's as simple as the stroke of a pen, then it can and will be easily and frequently abused. If it's technically possible, but it requires diverse favours to many individuals and unusual behaviour and lots of manpower, it'll rarely be considered and barely ever accomplished. A turnkey service, provided by an arm's-length organization like a corporation, is an almost irresistible lure. Good value prop for Apple, too; this'll generate favours for them, at least at first, when governments want the system used for this and that.

kragen 5y ago

> The solution for sure involves preventing these corporations from having surveillance power, in part by using government regulation Well, certainly it is necessary to prevent those corporations from having surveillance power, because you're right that it's irresistible for governments to abuse it; but I suggest you find a strategy that doesn't rely on your opponent surrendering while he is in a superior strategic position. (While I disagree with your comment, I think it adds to the discussion, so I deplore the vandals who are downvoting it as if it were spam.) Historically, the motto has been, "Cypherpunks write code." Today, that's not enough; we need hardware.

uniqueuid 5y ago

I do agree that (seemingly paradoxically) privacy regulation is the key to preventing overbearing state and corporate spying. The paper actually has a few nice things to say on this. Among other passages: > Economics cannot be ignored. One way that democratic societies protect their citizens against the ever-present danger of government intrusion is by making search expensive. In the US, there are several mechanisms that do this, including the onerous process of applying for a wiretap warrant (which for criminal cases must be essentially a “last resort” investigative tool) and imposition of requirements such as “minimization” (law enforcement not listening or taping if the communication does not pertain to criminal activity). These raise the cost of wiretapping. > By contrast, a general CSS system makes all material cheaply accessible to government agents. It eliminates the requirement of physical access to the devices. It can be configured to scan any file on every device. I think the economics-based approach is very valuable here, especially because it is comparable across forms of government.

revolvingocelot 5y ago

It's not about whether governments can do it, it's how easily it's accomplished. If it's as simple as the stroke of a pen, then it can and will be easily and frequently abused. If it's technically possible, but it requires diverse favours to many individuals and unusual behaviour and lots of manpower, it'll rarely be considered and barely ever accomplished. A turnkey service, provided by an arm's-length organization like a corporation, is an almost irresistible lure. Good value prop for Apple, too; this'll generate favours for them, at least at first, when governments want the system used for this and that.