5 ms·

That's just impossible. Even if everyone had perfect e2e encryption, the government could just ban it and throw people who use it in jail. You can't solve soci

That's just impossible. Even if everyone had perfect e2e encryption, the government could just ban it and throw people who use it in jail. You can't solve social problems with technology. What is necessary is a governmental system which tends away from the abuse of power. This requires better voting, more transparency, and the literacy and engagement of its citizens. The problem is, just like in Conway's game of life, the current system's state informs what states it'll progress to. If a system tends toward corruption or abuse and isn't actively changed, well eventually it no longer will be possible to change. https://xkcd.com/538 https://xkcd.com/538

neodymiumphish 3y ago
That's why you use a constitution strong enough to prevent the government from having authority to ban a tool like that. The solution's been known and described for 250+ years now.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  The problem is, if you rely on tools - and a constitution is nothing else than a tool - you will end up developing a reliance on that tool. And all of a sudden, that tool breaks, and you're fucked. Democracy must be fought for every single day, and for that matter so does all progress. Democracy isn't something a society automatically converges to and which everyone loves, it must actively be maintained or someone will come, sow mistrust and preach "easy" solutions - and then you wake up and your country isn't a democracy any more.
- vacuity 3y ago
  The US Constitution certainly isn't modern or flexible enough to definitively protect (users of) E2EE. There are arguments for their protection, but none is ironclad (like "this is speech that is protected" ironclad). I'm not saying the Bill of Rights was wrong in its time period, but it would be more appropriate to lay out fundamental principles that must be upheld, and protection for E2EE (users) could then be derived. There's some of that already, but not in a clear and comprehensive manner.
  - I_am_uncreative 3y ago
    The first amendment protects speech. Code is speech. E2EE is code. Therefore, the first amendment protects E2EE.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      I forgot about that argument. I think it's not ironclad because "code is speech" seems like a stretch to me. I guess I'm being a bit unfair; when I say I want ironclad principles, I mean the kind that you can interpret literally and deduce whatever correctly. Admittedly harder to do.
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      Having the right to build a dragster car in your garage doesn't imply being allowed to drive on public roads with it.
- theossuary 3y ago
  That's silly. A constitution is just a piece of paper. It has no inherent power. It's the institutions put in place to enforce the constitution that give it power. If those institutions rot, the constitution will not protect you. As we've seen time and again.
- pixl97 3y ago
  A constitution is a piece of paper. At the end of the day, especially in a representative democracy is it's people. If the people drifting towards authoritarianism in mass, they will gladly wrap that piece of paper around a stick, light it on fire, and impale you with it all while claiming their new king.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Constitution is nothing but paper. What stops the government from just ignoring it? Happened in my country. Supreme court started censoring people despite the fact it's unconstitutional. Police follows their orders so whatever they write on documents is law. A literal judiciary dictatorship was silently installed and nobody even acknowledged it. This is why you should never allow them to disarm you. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the threat of deadly force. The government should be in a state of permanent existential dread, its power always threatened by the population.
tchalla 3y ago
You can address social problems with transparency in access.
- sowbug 3y ago
  Something like browser certificate transparency, but for search warrants.
nurple 3y ago
Interestingly they don't even need to ban the tech, just throw out enough FUD about people attempting to take back control of their personal data using the tech and you can set some nice precedent (in the mind of the judge and people) that those who use these tools _must_ have something evil to hide. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36197168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36197168
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> You can't solve social problems with technology. Sure we can. Every time people make subversive technology, it literally changes the world and its power structures. Computers are the ultimate example of subversive technology, they can make a mockery of courts and police using nothing but mathematics. It's really no wonder they want to control computing by only allowing us to run signed software, it's too subversive otherwise. Every time new technology shows up, they have to increase their tyranny in order to maintain the same level of control they used to enjoy. Just assume anyone using such technology is guilty? Sounds like tyranny to me. The next step is to get everyone to use the technology so they can't just assume that. At some point we'll find their limits. We'll end up with either an uncontrollable population or a totalitarian government.

neodymiumphish 3y ago

That's why you use a constitution strong enough to prevent the government from having authority to ban a tool like that. The solution's been known and described for 250+ years now.

mschuster91 3y ago
The problem is, if you rely on tools - and a constitution is nothing else than a tool - you will end up developing a reliance on that tool. And all of a sudden, that tool breaks, and you're fucked. Democracy must be fought for every single day, and for that matter so does all progress. Democracy isn't something a society automatically converges to and which everyone loves, it must actively be maintained or someone will come, sow mistrust and preach "easy" solutions - and then you wake up and your country isn't a democracy any more.
vacuity 3y ago
The US Constitution certainly isn't modern or flexible enough to definitively protect (users of) E2EE. There are arguments for their protection, but none is ironclad (like "this is speech that is protected" ironclad). I'm not saying the Bill of Rights was wrong in its time period, but it would be more appropriate to lay out fundamental principles that must be upheld, and protection for E2EE (users) could then be derived. There's some of that already, but not in a clear and comprehensive manner.
- I_am_uncreative 3y ago
  The first amendment protects speech. Code is speech. E2EE is code. Therefore, the first amendment protects E2EE.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    I forgot about that argument. I think it's not ironclad because "code is speech" seems like a stretch to me. I guess I'm being a bit unfair; when I say I want ironclad principles, I mean the kind that you can interpret literally and deduce whatever correctly. Admittedly harder to do.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    Having the right to build a dragster car in your garage doesn't imply being allowed to drive on public roads with it.
theossuary 3y ago
That's silly. A constitution is just a piece of paper. It has no inherent power. It's the institutions put in place to enforce the constitution that give it power. If those institutions rot, the constitution will not protect you. As we've seen time and again.
pixl97 3y ago
A constitution is a piece of paper. At the end of the day, especially in a representative democracy is it's people. If the people drifting towards authoritarianism in mass, they will gladly wrap that piece of paper around a stick, light it on fire, and impale you with it all while claiming their new king.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Constitution is nothing but paper. What stops the government from just ignoring it? Happened in my country. Supreme court started censoring people despite the fact it's unconstitutional. Police follows their orders so whatever they write on documents is law. A literal judiciary dictatorship was silently installed and nobody even acknowledged it. This is why you should never allow them to disarm you. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the threat of deadly force. The government should be in a state of permanent existential dread, its power always threatened by the population.

tchalla 3y ago

You can address social problems with transparency in access.

sowbug 3y ago
Something like browser certificate transparency, but for search warrants.

nurple 3y ago

Interestingly they don't even need to ban the tech, just throw out enough FUD about people attempting to take back control of their personal data using the tech and you can set some nice precedent (in the mind of the judge and people) that those who use these tools _must_ have something evil to hide. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36197168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36197168

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> You can't solve social problems with technology. Sure we can. Every time people make subversive technology, it literally changes the world and its power structures. Computers are the ultimate example of subversive technology, they can make a mockery of courts and police using nothing but mathematics. It's really no wonder they want to control computing by only allowing us to run signed software, it's too subversive otherwise. Every time new technology shows up, they have to increase their tyranny in order to maintain the same level of control they used to enjoy. Just assume anyone using such technology is guilty? Sounds like tyranny to me. The next step is to get everyone to use the technology so they can't just assume that. At some point we'll find their limits. We'll end up with either an uncontrollable population or a totalitarian government.