5 ms·

It's not unrealistic in technological but sociological terms.

by high_5 3y ago

rakoo 3y ago
That's not unrealistic then, it's just a lack of will.
- nemo 3y ago
  No, it's simply unrealistic. Effort is besides the point.
- high_5 3y ago
  Mostly not a lack of will but much more local and urgent priorities than figuring out SSH and PGP, like jobs and chores for example.
  - rakoo 3y ago
    As I said in another comment, it's not about everyone installing ssh and pgp and configuring them and learning how to use them, it's about us in the tech community to provide tools so easy to use you don't even know you're using state-of-the-art privacy tools. Like what Signal has done, and now it is expected that any messenger at least positions themselves on the end-to-end-encryption. Or like what Deltachat is doing with automatically configuring PGP such that users don't ever need to read those 3 dreaded letters.
    - high_5 3y ago
      Been there, done that. It's already hard to scale those two apps beyond your immediate circles and people won't just stop using WhatsApp or Viber or whatnot. But then try to convince your friends that they have to convince their friends. Friendships are not a pyramid scheme.
- alexvitkov 3y ago
  Yes, most of these tools are a pain in the ass to use, so people can't be bothered. The only universally used tech on this list is SSL, because end users don't need to "install SSL and learn to use it" - we had to put in the work to upgrade or shitty servers, and they get the benefits. Time had proven that the "don't you care about your privacy" argument doesn't work, so it's up to us to make the privacy-respecting tools better than the alternatives
  - rakoo 3y ago
    That's exactly my point. I'm not deluded to the point I expect people to read up and install all these tools; it's our job to make these tools so ubiquitous that it doesn't take any effort to effectively use them.
  - Citizen_Lame 3y ago
    Expect people to install those tools in unrealistic. But companies can implement all the features in the end product (web browser, email client, IM client etc.).
- anonym29 3y ago
  Extremely generous take on human intelligence. If you're of above average intelligence, remember that you're likely biased to assume the average person is more intelligent than they actually are.
  - rakoo 3y ago
    As I said in another comment, I'm not expecting everyone to actually learn and install those tools, I want all the people who can use them and modify them build on top and provide tools that spread the use of these technologies. I don't expect everyone to configure tor hidden services, but if we can make it so that most traffic goes through tor, because the clients and the servers use it by default, then that will be a nice step. The Tor Browser makes using tor way simpler, if that could be used and advertised as a default browser, that would be great. To me, the sociological aspect is in the way we act together as a society, helping others do what we think is good, providing support. Not simply how one is expected to somehow learn and do everything out of nowhere.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      I like the concept, but I think the problem here is that governments have the means and resources to go after folks building and distributing browsers, apps, etc. The decentralized nature of the technologies mentioned contributes substantially to their resilience. Re-centralizing them opens new avenues of attack and new targets to silence and corrupt for the state.
- baal80spam 3y ago
  He said unrealistic, not impossible.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  For human-related endeavors, motivation of the stakeholders is the key part that determines whether something is realistic or not. All kinds of technical difficulties can be fixed with effort and talent of a few people, but if something requires will of the masses and there's a lack of will, that thing is simply not going to happen no matter what you do - because there's no "just" with respect to lack of will, that's lack of something necessary that you can't easily create.
  - rakoo 3y ago
    See my other replies: it's not about the will of the masses, it's about our collective will of us, the tech people, to build the tools that make using these technologies ubiquitous. We've been fixated on our own problems ("what is the best framework for building a blog ?") instead of acting with everyone else to build what we collectively want. It's our responsibility to be of use to the society, not just to us.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      IMHO in this respect we already have built 'what we collectively want', however, the limiting factor is a lack of will to use or prefer privacy-preserving solutions. The society has voted with its attention and wallets, and it doesn't want what the tech people think is good for society. You can't build a technical solution to a social problem - well, you can, but it won't get used and so it won't solve anything.

It's not unrealistic in technological but sociological terms.

by high_5 3y ago

It's not unrealistic in technological but sociological terms.

rakoo 3y ago

That's not unrealistic then, it's just a lack of will.

nemo 3y ago
No, it's simply unrealistic. Effort is besides the point.
high_5 3y ago
Mostly not a lack of will but much more local and urgent priorities than figuring out SSH and PGP, like jobs and chores for example.
- rakoo 3y ago
  As I said in another comment, it's not about everyone installing ssh and pgp and configuring them and learning how to use them, it's about us in the tech community to provide tools so easy to use you don't even know you're using state-of-the-art privacy tools. Like what Signal has done, and now it is expected that any messenger at least positions themselves on the end-to-end-encryption. Or like what Deltachat is doing with automatically configuring PGP such that users don't ever need to read those 3 dreaded letters.
  - high_5 3y ago
    Been there, done that. It's already hard to scale those two apps beyond your immediate circles and people won't just stop using WhatsApp or Viber or whatnot. But then try to convince your friends that they have to convince their friends. Friendships are not a pyramid scheme.
alexvitkov 3y ago
Yes, most of these tools are a pain in the ass to use, so people can't be bothered. The only universally used tech on this list is SSL, because end users don't need to "install SSL and learn to use it" - we had to put in the work to upgrade or shitty servers, and they get the benefits. Time had proven that the "don't you care about your privacy" argument doesn't work, so it's up to us to make the privacy-respecting tools better than the alternatives
- rakoo 3y ago
  That's exactly my point. I'm not deluded to the point I expect people to read up and install all these tools; it's our job to make these tools so ubiquitous that it doesn't take any effort to effectively use them.
- Citizen_Lame 3y ago
  Expect people to install those tools in unrealistic. But companies can implement all the features in the end product (web browser, email client, IM client etc.).
anonym29 3y ago
Extremely generous take on human intelligence. If you're of above average intelligence, remember that you're likely biased to assume the average person is more intelligent than they actually are.
- rakoo 3y ago
  As I said in another comment, I'm not expecting everyone to actually learn and install those tools, I want all the people who can use them and modify them build on top and provide tools that spread the use of these technologies. I don't expect everyone to configure tor hidden services, but if we can make it so that most traffic goes through tor, because the clients and the servers use it by default, then that will be a nice step. The Tor Browser makes using tor way simpler, if that could be used and advertised as a default browser, that would be great. To me, the sociological aspect is in the way we act together as a society, helping others do what we think is good, providing support. Not simply how one is expected to somehow learn and do everything out of nowhere.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    I like the concept, but I think the problem here is that governments have the means and resources to go after folks building and distributing browsers, apps, etc. The decentralized nature of the technologies mentioned contributes substantially to their resilience. Re-centralizing them opens new avenues of attack and new targets to silence and corrupt for the state.
baal80spam 3y ago
He said unrealistic, not impossible.
PeterisP 3y ago
For human-related endeavors, motivation of the stakeholders is the key part that determines whether something is realistic or not. All kinds of technical difficulties can be fixed with effort and talent of a few people, but if something requires will of the masses and there's a lack of will, that thing is simply not going to happen no matter what you do - because there's no "just" with respect to lack of will, that's lack of something necessary that you can't easily create.
- rakoo 3y ago
  See my other replies: it's not about the will of the masses, it's about our collective will of us, the tech people, to build the tools that make using these technologies ubiquitous. We've been fixated on our own problems ("what is the best framework for building a blog ?") instead of acting with everyone else to build what we collectively want. It's our responsibility to be of use to the society, not just to us.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    IMHO in this respect we already have built 'what we collectively want', however, the limiting factor is a lack of will to use or prefer privacy-preserving solutions. The society has voted with its attention and wallets, and it doesn't want what the tech people think is good for society. You can't build a technical solution to a social problem - well, you can, but it won't get used and so it won't solve anything.