3 ms·

> We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. I used to think this way, and still do to a degree...

by tomxor 4y ago

> We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. I used to think this way, and still do to a degree... but it's not enough. The idea of zero trust as an absolute is flawed, because if the adversary is your own government they will just keep shifting targets. Lets play this out: 1. Gov start monitoring all proprietary messaging platforms and services. So lets assume that in response, decentralised FOSS based e2e encrypted private messaging services flourish, and everyone actually adopts them... All proprietary messaging platforms/services die off. Great, what next? 2. Now gov mandate that all hardware must have have backdoors to circumvent those measures. So lets assume in response, consumer hardware transforms into IBM PC style open standard and people start assembling their own smart phones and tablets out of interchangeable components so that they can avoid those pesky backdoor chips... and miraculously everyone does this and proprietary handset manufacturers all die off. Now what? 3. Gov mandate all fabs must etch an additional microcontroller onto every CPU/microcontroller with > n gates, with full memory and network access. Do we all start running local fabs in our basement? Hopefully you get my point, the reality is that there is friction in both directions and neither end has absolute power, but we must push back against policies like this to prevent erosion of our values, do not "give them an inch" so to speak. We cannot trust all of society, but we also cannot afford to not trust civilisation in it's entirety, it's just not possible, we cannot build our own computers out of sticks and mud. If you want an example of what a technological arms race with your own government looks like, it's happening in China right now. They aren't even fighting for privacy, they are fighting to just communicate and access information freely.

seanw444 4y ago
Agreed. Just like every fight for freedoms, it is a constant battle, and one that will never end.
- masterof0 4y ago
  The alternative would be China-style surveillance state, and be cool with it? Nice
staunton 4y ago
> everyone actually adopts them I think that scenario is unrealistic because if a majority of people are at a point where they would go to such lengths for privacy, democratic governments wouldn't be monitoring everything in the first place. I believe most high-democracy-index countries are democratic enough for this to apply. Actual reason for these policies is that most people do not care about privacy.
- tomxor 4y ago
  I know. It's a thought experiment to show that even in unrealistically optimistic conditions, technology is still not sufficient to solve the problem. I intentionally ignored the societal component of adoption for this reason, showing that it makes no difference.
YoshiRulz 4y ago
IMO, your hypothetical falls apart at the second point: > Now gov mandate that all hardware must have have backdoors to circumvent those measures. A government could legislate that it may not rain anywhere in the country on Tuesdays, but executing that isn't practicable. Likewise, backdooring one family of CPUs may be possible, but you can't simply tell chip fabs to backdoor each and every design. They'd grind to a halt in order to comply. And I want to say that there exists provably un-backdoor-able "zero-knowledge" computing, something like Ethereum's smart contract ISA, but I may be misremembering. In the end, our governments are democratic, we elect politicians to represent our will. They shouldn't be pushing for things like backdoors at all when no citizens are in favour. So yes, > [...] we must push back against policies like this to prevent erosion of our values, do not "give them an inch" so to speak. I agree that China is currently, to continue your metaphor, winning the fight against privacy—but only because using the government-friendly superapps is necessary for everyday life, and not because they've blocked the likes of Tor.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > They'd grind to a halt in order to comply. that would be the intended outcome: comply or die.
- tomxor 4y ago
  > you can't simply tell chip fabs to backdoor each and every design. They'd grind to a halt in order to comply. Yes, it's supposed to be an unrealistically optimistic thought experiment, both in favour of the efficacy of technical solutions (ignoring the societal component) and government power (ignoring economic side-effects). It shows that technology alone cannot outmanoeuvre unchecked power, and so power must be kept in check. In reality, there are multiple forces beyond legislation that naturally add friction, which you allude to... However governments can get very far before hitting those thresholds, especially if there is no pushback from the people. There is also the problem of compounding policies eroding democratic freedoms, that can allow for easier enactment of ever more extreme policies, even in spite of economic consequence. For instance this is the case with the GFW in China where workers no longer have access to the full wealth of information available on the wider internet to perform their jobs as effectively. The ultimate point I'm trying to make here (and I think we are in agreement), is that as technologists we cannot simply bury our heads in our code, we must acknowledge that developing more resilient technology is only a single component, it is not sufficient. Supporting the fight against freedom eroding policies is necessary.
int_19h 4y ago
The key here is that the "systems" that we need to decentralize include political and economic systems, not just technological ones.

by tomxor 4y ago

seanw444 4y ago

Agreed. Just like every fight for freedoms, it is a constant battle, and one that will never end.

masterof0 4y ago
The alternative would be China-style surveillance state, and be cool with it? Nice

staunton 4y ago

> everyone actually adopts them I think that scenario is unrealistic because if a majority of people are at a point where they would go to such lengths for privacy, democratic governments wouldn't be monitoring everything in the first place. I believe most high-democracy-index countries are democratic enough for this to apply. Actual reason for these policies is that most people do not care about privacy.

tomxor 4y ago
I know. It's a thought experiment to show that even in unrealistically optimistic conditions, technology is still not sufficient to solve the problem. I intentionally ignored the societal component of adoption for this reason, showing that it makes no difference.

YoshiRulz 4y ago

IMO, your hypothetical falls apart at the second point: > Now gov mandate that all hardware must have have backdoors to circumvent those measures. A government could legislate that it may not rain anywhere in the country on Tuesdays, but executing that isn't practicable. Likewise, backdooring one family of CPUs may be possible, but you can't simply tell chip fabs to backdoor each and every design. They'd grind to a halt in order to comply. And I want to say that there exists provably un-backdoor-able "zero-knowledge" computing, something like Ethereum's smart contract ISA, but I may be misremembering. In the end, our governments are democratic, we elect politicians to represent our will. They shouldn't be pushing for things like backdoors at all when no citizens are in favour. So yes, > [...] we must push back against policies like this to prevent erosion of our values, do not "give them an inch" so to speak. I agree that China is currently, to continue your metaphor, winning the fight against privacy—but only because using the government-friendly superapps is necessary for everyday life, and not because they've blocked the likes of Tor.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> They'd grind to a halt in order to comply. that would be the intended outcome: comply or die.
tomxor 4y ago
> you can't simply tell chip fabs to backdoor each and every design. They'd grind to a halt in order to comply. Yes, it's supposed to be an unrealistically optimistic thought experiment, both in favour of the efficacy of technical solutions (ignoring the societal component) and government power (ignoring economic side-effects). It shows that technology alone cannot outmanoeuvre unchecked power, and so power must be kept in check. In reality, there are multiple forces beyond legislation that naturally add friction, which you allude to... However governments can get very far before hitting those thresholds, especially if there is no pushback from the people. There is also the problem of compounding policies eroding democratic freedoms, that can allow for easier enactment of ever more extreme policies, even in spite of economic consequence. For instance this is the case with the GFW in China where workers no longer have access to the full wealth of information available on the wider internet to perform their jobs as effectively. The ultimate point I'm trying to make here (and I think we are in agreement), is that as technologists we cannot simply bury our heads in our code, we must acknowledge that developing more resilient technology is only a single component, it is not sufficient. Supporting the fight against freedom eroding policies is necessary.

int_19h 4y ago

The key here is that the "systems" that we need to decentralize include political and economic systems, not just technological ones.