4 ms·

Want mathematical assurance that your government won't abuse power against you? Either you have to be the government or you don't live in a society with a gover

Want mathematical assurance that your government won't abuse power against you? Either you have to be the government or you don't live in a society with a government. Abuse isn't so easily constrained. Try proactive regulations, vigilance, and strict punishments (not comprehensive). Best effort, but what else can you do?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
"Government can never abuse power or government can systemically abuse power" is a false dichotomy. You can make it cost more so it happens less. Encryption is the common example. As far as anybody knows the government can't break e.g. AES. But they can still find out what's on your device because with a warrant they can install surveillance devices in your house to capture it when you enter your passphrase, then seize your device. Which makes it possible but not easy, which limits the scope for abuse.
- vacuity 3y ago
  > "Government can never abuse power or government can systemically abuse power" is a false dichotomy. I didn't make it a dichotomy. I was just commenting that "mathematically impossible" is too strong to the point of absurdity. Not fun at parties, but I would hope it's fine on Hacker News. I then provided a rough overview of a system to mitigate abuse. We're not even disagreeing about trying to minimize government abuse. To discuss your example of encryption, the abuse is the government installing and using the surveillance devices (let's assume the suspicion isn't beyond reasonable doubt or whatever and the warrant is invalid). The question is whether that abuse is prevented or routed and justice is enacted.
  - I_am_uncreative 3y ago
    The standard for a warrant is probable cause, a far lower bar than beyond reasonable doubt.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Oops. Perhaps it should be different but I know next to nothing about the topic. I think my point still stands, though. Thanks for the info.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Law enforcement burglarizing your house to install hidden cameras without a warrant is indeed something you would want the system to address, but it's also a much narrower problem, because it's expensive and dangerous. Typically when doing that sort of thing with a warrant, it would be done by a team who e.g. ensures that the homeowner doesn't come back while the cops are in there installing the bug, and who wouldn't go to jail if the suspect's brother unexpectedly shows up just then and catches them -- because they had a warrant. Whereas anybody can forge a document and submit it to the phone company, and the scope of who is able and willing to abuse that data is very large. So it should be narrowed by not collecting it and forcing access to go via the more expensive route which is less subject to abuse.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Sure. We're not really disagreeing, just talking past each other. The more robust systems are to prevent abuse, the better.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

"Government can never abuse power or government can systemically abuse power" is a false dichotomy. You can make it cost more so it happens less. Encryption is the common example. As far as anybody knows the government can't break e.g. AES. But they can still find out what's on your device because with a warrant they can install surveillance devices in your house to capture it when you enter your passphrase, then seize your device. Which makes it possible but not easy, which limits the scope for abuse.

vacuity 3y ago
> "Government can never abuse power or government can systemically abuse power" is a false dichotomy. I didn't make it a dichotomy. I was just commenting that "mathematically impossible" is too strong to the point of absurdity. Not fun at parties, but I would hope it's fine on Hacker News. I then provided a rough overview of a system to mitigate abuse. We're not even disagreeing about trying to minimize government abuse. To discuss your example of encryption, the abuse is the government installing and using the surveillance devices (let's assume the suspicion isn't beyond reasonable doubt or whatever and the warrant is invalid). The question is whether that abuse is prevented or routed and justice is enacted.
- I_am_uncreative 3y ago
  The standard for a warrant is probable cause, a far lower bar than beyond reasonable doubt.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Oops. Perhaps it should be different but I know next to nothing about the topic. I think my point still stands, though. Thanks for the info.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Law enforcement burglarizing your house to install hidden cameras without a warrant is indeed something you would want the system to address, but it's also a much narrower problem, because it's expensive and dangerous. Typically when doing that sort of thing with a warrant, it would be done by a team who e.g. ensures that the homeowner doesn't come back while the cops are in there installing the bug, and who wouldn't go to jail if the suspect's brother unexpectedly shows up just then and catches them -- because they had a warrant. Whereas anybody can forge a document and submit it to the phone company, and the scope of who is able and willing to abuse that data is very large. So it should be narrowed by not collecting it and forcing access to go via the more expensive route which is less subject to abuse.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Sure. We're not really disagreeing, just talking past each other. The more robust systems are to prevent abuse, the better.