3 ms·

Some people take cyberpunk as entertainment, some as a paraody, some as a warning, some as all of the above. And some take it as blue print worth pursueing. ED

by hef19898 3y ago

Some people take cyberpunk as entertainment, some as a paraody, some as a warning, some as all of the above. And some take it as blue print worth pursueing. EDIT: The while premise of needing a nin-centralized wax of confirming ones identity is, at its core, deeply un-demicratic. As of bow, government issued documentation confirms anyones identiy. These governments can be democratic, and are. Puting a different system in place, controlled by some tech-billionaire-liberitarian, is as dytopian as it gets. So of course VCs are investing like hell in it.

WeylandYutani 3y ago
I've always seen libertarians not as pursuers of freedom but as people who want to replace the police with a private security force. Libertarians want to live in a world where they are accountable to no-one. It's the ultimate conclusion of capitalism: wealth makes right. Serfdom and (sexual) exploitation for those of us who are not rich.
ttepasse 3y ago
@AlexBlechman on TwiX had this tweet some years ago: Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
- qingcharles 3y ago
  I soiled myself laughing. Thank you.
sirreal14 3y ago
> The while premise of needing a nin-centralized wax of confirming ones identity is, at its core, deeply un-demicratic. As of bow, government issued documentation confirms anyones identiy. These governments can be democratic, and are. Puting a different system in place, controlled by some tech-billionaire-liberitarian, is as dytopian as it gets. I deeply hate this line of logic. This exact argument was presented against the Signal messaging app in an Op-Ed in the NYT (https://archive.is/tJoem https://archive.is/tJoem), to quote from it: > They are a small group of people who govern these powerful tools, and they are not accountable in the way that, say, a democratically elected government is. Whether law enforcement should tap our phones on the condition that a warrant is obtained is, at the very least, worthy of public discussion. Signal has unilaterally decided for us all. Boo hoo, math makes it so that governments (yes, even democratic ones) can't tap phones, therefore math (and the technologists who code up this math) are evil and anti-democratic. For all WorldCoin's faults, merely attempting to offer a decentralized alternative (even if it's not a very good one!) to government proof-of-person solutions is not one of them.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I am all for privacy and encrypted communications. Until a legitimate law enforcent body gets a legitimate warrant against a specified organisation or individual. Outsourcing some, or all of that to some VC backed companies, facilitating access for the various intelligence agencies, is what I have a problem with. And a crypto start-up setting out to build a global database of peoples retinas is exactly that.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sirreal14 3y ago
    > I am all for privacy and encrypted communications. Until a legitimate law enforcement.... So you're against encryption then. Simple as that. > Outsourcing some, or all of that to some VC backed companies, facilitating access for the various intelligence agencies, is what I have a problem with. I also have a problem with that. We should aim to build systems that are resistant to all attackers, even intelligence agencies. And like Signal, it should be impossible for companies to facilitate access for anyone, including intelligence/law enforcement. > And a crypto start-up setting out to build a global database of peoples retinas Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with real criticisms of WorldCoin (Vitalik has a nice critique here: https://vitalik.ca/general/2023/07/24/biometric.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2023/07/24/biometric.html), because they don't store biometric data, they only store hashes. What's the worry here? If WorldCoin surpasses their wildly ambitious long term goals, governments won't be able to revoke someones passport for being a dissident anymore? What specific issues do you see with a successful decentralized proof of personhood system? EDIT: Specifically, what issues does _decentralization_ bring to proof-of-personhood over government run proof of personhood, other than removing the government's ability to un-person someone.
    - kemotep 3y ago
      What mechanism prevents the government from “un-person-ing” someone if Worldcoin was used as the global identity system?

WeylandYutani 3y ago

I've always seen libertarians not as pursuers of freedom but as people who want to replace the police with a private security force. Libertarians want to live in a world where they are accountable to no-one. It's the ultimate conclusion of capitalism: wealth makes right. Serfdom and (sexual) exploitation for those of us who are not rich.

ttepasse 3y ago

@AlexBlechman on TwiX had this tweet some years ago: Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus

qingcharles 3y ago
I soiled myself laughing. Thank you.

sirreal14 3y ago

> The while premise of needing a nin-centralized wax of confirming ones identity is, at its core, deeply un-demicratic. As of bow, government issued documentation confirms anyones identiy. These governments can be democratic, and are. Puting a different system in place, controlled by some tech-billionaire-liberitarian, is as dytopian as it gets. I deeply hate this line of logic. This exact argument was presented against the Signal messaging app in an Op-Ed in the NYT (https://archive.is/tJoem https://archive.is/tJoem), to quote from it: > They are a small group of people who govern these powerful tools, and they are not accountable in the way that, say, a democratically elected government is. Whether law enforcement should tap our phones on the condition that a warrant is obtained is, at the very least, worthy of public discussion. Signal has unilaterally decided for us all. Boo hoo, math makes it so that governments (yes, even democratic ones) can't tap phones, therefore math (and the technologists who code up this math) are evil and anti-democratic. For all WorldCoin's faults, merely attempting to offer a decentralized alternative (even if it's not a very good one!) to government proof-of-person solutions is not one of them.

hef19898 3y ago
I am all for privacy and encrypted communications. Until a legitimate law enforcent body gets a legitimate warrant against a specified organisation or individual. Outsourcing some, or all of that to some VC backed companies, facilitating access for the various intelligence agencies, is what I have a problem with. And a crypto start-up setting out to build a global database of peoples retinas is exactly that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sirreal14 3y ago
  > I am all for privacy and encrypted communications. Until a legitimate law enforcement.... So you're against encryption then. Simple as that. > Outsourcing some, or all of that to some VC backed companies, facilitating access for the various intelligence agencies, is what I have a problem with. I also have a problem with that. We should aim to build systems that are resistant to all attackers, even intelligence agencies. And like Signal, it should be impossible for companies to facilitate access for anyone, including intelligence/law enforcement. > And a crypto start-up setting out to build a global database of peoples retinas Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with real criticisms of WorldCoin (Vitalik has a nice critique here: https://vitalik.ca/general/2023/07/24/biometric.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2023/07/24/biometric.html), because they don't store biometric data, they only store hashes. What's the worry here? If WorldCoin surpasses their wildly ambitious long term goals, governments won't be able to revoke someones passport for being a dissident anymore? What specific issues do you see with a successful decentralized proof of personhood system? EDIT: Specifically, what issues does _decentralization_ bring to proof-of-personhood over government run proof of personhood, other than removing the government's ability to un-person someone.
  - kemotep 3y ago
    What mechanism prevents the government from “un-person-ing” someone if Worldcoin was used as the global identity system?