5 ms·
People will post their tired moral objections(as I used to), but in a world where public information is already heavily monitored, censored and controlled, and
by sourcelang 3y ago
People will post their tired moral objections(as I used to), but in a world where public information is already heavily monitored, censored and controlled, and where people are already arrested for posting song lyrics or making their dog do comedy sketches, why not just completely let the cat out of the bag and stop pretending we have any sort of reasonable control over our own private lives, thoughts or opinions outside of government, intelligence agencies and public-perception altering mega-corporations? I’m quite serious here. There’s almost no point in fighting at this point.
I would personally like to see law enforcement and intelligence agencies double down on their use of these kinds of tools, but, you know, to catch drug traffickers, terrorists, illegal arms dealers, money launderers, actual criminals who want to harm people, or is that too much to ask?
If Trucker John is going to be arrested for posting something vaguely racist under a Twitter video where 5 guys are brutally murdering someone, why not also catch the actual criminals in the video?
I’m dead serious here. Let’s just accelerate. Make the internet and internet-connected devices defacto public property and allow full access to law enforcement. I’d rather have all this be regulated with oversight, than the alternative.
- hutzlibu 3y ago" I’d rather have all this be regulated with oversight, than the alternative." Yeah well, that raises the old question: who guards the guards? As far as I am aware, police and politicians themself, react quite allergic to more transparency (surveillance) for them. So the only way I would be remotely ok with more surveillance and regulation, is if would apply to everyone and especially to the regulators. Otherwise a clear no from me, I simply do not trust the authorities. And there are still lots of ways to communicate besides regulated spaces. But sure if, you want to be heard by the mainstream, you are going into regulated territory.
- adamhp 3y agoI really really wish people would keep reading 1984.
- sourcelang 3y agoSure, cover your eyes. This conversation needs to start at a point where we take the status quo of government, intelligence agency and private company operations into account, and not from an idealistic utopian perspective. Companies or governments with unlimited budgets, zero morals and access to the worlds smartest hackers will always exist. I’m not being some kind of doomer, I’m being realistic.
- hutzlibu 3y ago"Companies or governments with unlimited budgets, zero morals and access to the worlds smartest hackers will always exist. I’m not being some kind of doomer, I’m being realistic. " Actually, you are not realistic, as no government has unlimited budget. And yes, we have to work with, what we have. But that doesn't mean we have to make it easy to let the NSA in. So if they have (something like) a warrant, I am fine with them breaking into someones computers. But it has to be an effort and not just if they feel like it. That would be unchecked power and I am not aware, how that ever turned out fine.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoCompanies and governments with smartest hackers could be stealing money from your bank account, but they don't. If you steal money from a digital bank account, you go to prison. If you steal data from OneDrive, usually nothing happens.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- localplume 3y ago[dead]
- swader999 3y agoSo slavery, no free will?
- npteljes 3y agoThe main issues with this are: 1. It would be abused to hell and back - have you ever seen how people act with power? 2. Wrongdoers will still use covert tools. Cryptography has many forms, one of them is steganography - hiding information in plain sight. So, what you end up with by enabling this is a totalitarian state, where the most vulnerable are hurt the most. Which is basically what we originally wanted to get away from.