5 ms·

I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuf

I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant. If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying.

soulofmischief 3y ago
The crucial underpinning of this ideology is that We The People have given explicit permission to a specific group of individuals to have this power in exchange for freedoms we could not otherwise attain; rarely can something in life be so pure, a balance usually must be struck when considering such a complex system. In the US, we employed a three-party checks and balances system to try to solve this problem in a more distributed manner. Obviously there might be unsolved issues around a) preventing such a system from decaying over time and b) providing some sort of mechanism for people born into a governing society they do not agree with to travel to another society without unachievable economic hurdles. This of course too has limits. I do differ with you in that I do not believe another entity has the right to compel anyone to do anything. The judge can take my phone, but if it's locked, I cannot be compelled to produce a password. This is established by the fifth amendment, but would probably be better formalized today in a new constitution.
komali2 3y ago
> can only do it with a warrant This isn't true, if you're talking about the USA. Within 100 miles of a border, CPB and homeland security can conduct warantless searches, without probable clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer... This range includes the all but one of the largest American cities. That's just the law, though. Functionally and practically speaking, the cops can break in and kill you without a warrant, and do so frequently. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ They can also kill your dog, and frequently do https://aldf.org/project/dogs-shot-by-cops/ https://aldf.org/project/dogs-shot-by-cops/
inglor_cz 3y ago
Not the OP, but I find the idea that people should help authorities convict themselves absolutely abhorrent. You shouldn't be even compelled to help the government convict your loved ones, much less yourself. The government has enough money, powers and people at its disposal, why should they be allowed to be lazy and strongarm you into helping them against your vital interests? Go far enough in that direction and you'll end up with show trials.
bombolo 3y ago
You're ok with it because the social contract is that it only happens with reason, to people who have done something to deserve it. But now it's more like dictatorship and police controlling opinions, which, when it happens in non-western-aligned countries, we all agree that is a really bad thing.
edrxty 3y ago
I consider technology to be an extension of mind. I'm not ok with the police literally cracking open my skull and probing my brain, not just because of the invasive torturous nature, but because it's an invasion of the very state that forms my existence. Similarly, the bits of my mind that I offload to other places.
- didntcheck 3y ago
  Yeah, I think a good question to distinguish the different philosophies here is: if we had a perfect lie detector, would you support defendants being compelled to use it, with adverse assumptions for refusing?
  - wasimanitoba 3y ago
    Only if we could restrict the questions to the facts of the case, but my phone has a lot of unrelated personal stuff on it and so does my brain.
- dools 3y ago
  So like, if you wrote a journal detailing a bunch of crimes and/or criminal motives, you don't think that journal should be admissable as evidence in a criminal proceeding? Nor do you think that a warrant should be capable of granting access to that journal for the purposes of a criminal investigation?
  - edrxty 3y ago
    Within the narrow context that a journal is a mental device rather than "literally any document", yeah, I would prefer that be inadmissible.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    They can take the journal. They can't compel me to provide a key to unencrypt the contents.
- matt_kantor 3y ago
roenxi 3y ago
The moral justification of the situation to be irrelevant - in an ideal world messages would be held in some plausible-deniability system where it is impossible for the judge to know if someone has complied or not. Nobody has a right to snoop on other people's communication. Not even people wearing robs and wigs.
pravus 3y ago
> If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying. No. It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. Ever. If you want this to be a moral issue you must first prove that there is a moral basis for compliance and I've yet to hear one. Pointing a gun to my face and telling me what to do doesn't sound moral to me. You can ask. Nicely.
- dools 3y ago
  There doesn't really have to be a moral basis nor does there have to be consent. You can refuse, and you can choose to live outside of society. That might be very difficult, but you have the choice. For many, society doesn't provide any advantages and so they choose non-compliance and all the consequences that come with it.
  - foo-bar-bat 3y ago
    "Live outside of society" has a nice ring to it, but the meaning of those words when choosing to disobey court orders converts via bailiff to residing in jail cell. That's not living "outside society" or its constraints. It's very inside of them. If you want to actually live outside of society, perhaps the only way to do that is on a simple sailboat like Moxie did for a while: https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarlinspike https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarli... But even that only works temporarily because eventually something breaks or runs out, and you will be re-confronted by reality (some society somewhere) once ashore. For example your hypothetical phone unlock is what happened to Moxie. From Wikipedia: "While entering the U.S. on a flight from the Dominican Republic in 2010, Marlinspike was detained by federal agents for nearly five hours, all his electronic devices were confiscated, and at first agents claimed he would only get them back if he provided his passwords so they could decrypt the data. Marlinspike refused to do this, and the devices were eventually returned, though he noted that he could no longer trust them, saying, "They could have modified the hardware or installed new keyboard firmware." source: https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/ https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/

soulofmischief 3y ago

The crucial underpinning of this ideology is that We The People have given explicit permission to a specific group of individuals to have this power in exchange for freedoms we could not otherwise attain; rarely can something in life be so pure, a balance usually must be struck when considering such a complex system. In the US, we employed a three-party checks and balances system to try to solve this problem in a more distributed manner. Obviously there might be unsolved issues around a) preventing such a system from decaying over time and b) providing some sort of mechanism for people born into a governing society they do not agree with to travel to another society without unachievable economic hurdles. This of course too has limits. I do differ with you in that I do not believe another entity has the right to compel anyone to do anything. The judge can take my phone, but if it's locked, I cannot be compelled to produce a password. This is established by the fifth amendment, but would probably be better formalized today in a new constitution.

komali2 3y ago

> can only do it with a warrant This isn't true, if you're talking about the USA. Within 100 miles of a border, CPB and homeland security can conduct warantless searches, without probable clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer... This range includes the all but one of the largest American cities. That's just the law, though. Functionally and practically speaking, the cops can break in and kill you without a warrant, and do so frequently. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ They can also kill your dog, and frequently do https://aldf.org/project/dogs-shot-by-cops/ https://aldf.org/project/dogs-shot-by-cops/

inglor_cz 3y ago

Not the OP, but I find the idea that people should help authorities convict themselves absolutely abhorrent. You shouldn't be even compelled to help the government convict your loved ones, much less yourself. The government has enough money, powers and people at its disposal, why should they be allowed to be lazy and strongarm you into helping them against your vital interests? Go far enough in that direction and you'll end up with show trials.

bombolo 3y ago

You're ok with it because the social contract is that it only happens with reason, to people who have done something to deserve it. But now it's more like dictatorship and police controlling opinions, which, when it happens in non-western-aligned countries, we all agree that is a really bad thing.

edrxty 3y ago

I consider technology to be an extension of mind. I'm not ok with the police literally cracking open my skull and probing my brain, not just because of the invasive torturous nature, but because it's an invasion of the very state that forms my existence. Similarly, the bits of my mind that I offload to other places.

didntcheck 3y ago
Yeah, I think a good question to distinguish the different philosophies here is: if we had a perfect lie detector, would you support defendants being compelled to use it, with adverse assumptions for refusing?
- wasimanitoba 3y ago
  Only if we could restrict the questions to the facts of the case, but my phone has a lot of unrelated personal stuff on it and so does my brain.
dools 3y ago
So like, if you wrote a journal detailing a bunch of crimes and/or criminal motives, you don't think that journal should be admissable as evidence in a criminal proceeding? Nor do you think that a warrant should be capable of granting access to that journal for the purposes of a criminal investigation?
- edrxty 3y ago
  Within the narrow context that a journal is a mental device rather than "literally any document", yeah, I would prefer that be inadmissible.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  They can take the journal. They can't compel me to provide a key to unencrypt the contents.
matt_kantor 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

The moral justification of the situation to be irrelevant - in an ideal world messages would be held in some plausible-deniability system where it is impossible for the judge to know if someone has complied or not. Nobody has a right to snoop on other people's communication. Not even people wearing robs and wigs.

pravus 3y ago

> If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying. No. It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. Ever. If you want this to be a moral issue you must first prove that there is a moral basis for compliance and I've yet to hear one. Pointing a gun to my face and telling me what to do doesn't sound moral to me. You can ask. Nicely.

dools 3y ago
There doesn't really have to be a moral basis nor does there have to be consent. You can refuse, and you can choose to live outside of society. That might be very difficult, but you have the choice. For many, society doesn't provide any advantages and so they choose non-compliance and all the consequences that come with it.
- foo-bar-bat 3y ago
  "Live outside of society" has a nice ring to it, but the meaning of those words when choosing to disobey court orders converts via bailiff to residing in jail cell. That's not living "outside society" or its constraints. It's very inside of them. If you want to actually live outside of society, perhaps the only way to do that is on a simple sailboat like Moxie did for a while: https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarlinspike https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarli... But even that only works temporarily because eventually something breaks or runs out, and you will be re-confronted by reality (some society somewhere) once ashore. For example your hypothetical phone unlock is what happened to Moxie. From Wikipedia: "While entering the U.S. on a flight from the Dominican Republic in 2010, Marlinspike was detained by federal agents for nearly five hours, all his electronic devices were confiscated, and at first agents claimed he would only get them back if he provided his passwords so they could decrypt the data. Marlinspike refused to do this, and the devices were eventually returned, though he noted that he could no longer trust them, saying, "They could have modified the hardware or installed new keyboard firmware." source: https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/ https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/