7 ms·

Arguing in good faith against the lawmakers who are perfectly aware of the the gaping holes in their own arguments is too common in this field IMO. If we want

Arguing in good faith against the lawmakers who are perfectly aware of the the gaping holes in their own arguments is too common in this field IMO. If we want to protect the right to encryption and (pseudo)anonimity to the degree we have it now, we have to appeal to emotion. Just like how "child advocacy" groups tried to make you into a monster if you think blanket scanning of all data on our computing devices is a bit too far gone.

cnity 3y ago
Yes. You can actually flip the script with "think of the children arguments" because banning E2EE fundamentally makes children less safe. However I suspect it's worse than this: these law maker's don't care about children, they care about power and establishing control over how citizens communicate. There is no argument to deter them, we can only hope to convince the public or else be damned to illegal activity as hackers.
- hnbad 3y ago
  Governments love passing bills that give the government more power. Very rarely do governments pass bills to remove that power later. This is a power grab and should be treated as such. E2EE makes police work more inconvenient but it should be inconvenient. If you want to optimize for police work convenience, you get a police state.
lynx23 3y ago
A great example why the "assume good intentions"-meme is actually pretty broken and leaves those that follow it with a disadvantage. The same way as "assume good intentions" fails when interacting with sociopaths, it also fails when interacting with lawmakers and authorities in general.
- rcarr 3y ago
  Commander William T. Riker: In all trust, there is the possibility of betrayal. I'm not sure you were... prepared for that. Lt. Commander Data: Were you prepared, sir? Commander William T. Riker: I don't think anybody ever is. Lt. Commander Data: Hm... Then it is better not to trust? Commander William T. Riker: Without trust, there's no friendship, no closeness. None of the emotional bonds that make us who we are. Lt. Commander Data: And yet you put yourself at risk. Commander William T. Riker: Every single time. Lt. Commander Data: Perhaps I am fortunate, sir, to be spared the emotional consequences. Commander William T. Riker: Perhaps. https://youtu.be/JCvqMk4P3zQ https://youtu.be/JCvqMk4P3zQ
  - cnity 3y ago
    TNG is the most comprehensive analysis of ethics I've ever witnessed. No media or publication even comes close to delivering such a sense of understanding the timeless difficulties of the human experience.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      And yet, it portrays a "would like to have" world that couldn't be more distant from what we actually have. It is literaly (science) fiction. Using a fictious 24th century chat between a womanizer and a fancy robot to explain to a 21st century real world human they should be more trusting is rather, shall I say odd?
      - cnity 3y ago
        You're missing the point. The setting of TNG is radically different from ours for the reason you described, and yet their problems of trust are the same. Using science fiction to deliver messages pertinent to today is typical and, arguably, the goal of science fiction. It isn't odd at all.
        lynx23 3y ago
        I don't think I am missing the point. As you mentioned, the setting of TNG is radically different from today. And I submit that in such a different setting, it is orders of magnitudes easier to trust, because (most) people from the 24th century are part of that setting, and are vastly easier to trust then people from today. So assuming a person from today just has to believe in the virtual ethics of TNG is just crazy and naiv. I know that scifi is being used to reflect on the present. That doesnt mean it is always helpful.
        cnity 3y ago
        It's not about taking these "virtual ethics" at face value. It's about watching a touching moment between characters and recognising that elements of that situation can be related to. If you are unable to consume fiction without being able to do this then I really don't know what to say.
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  With lawmakers it’s tricky. The individual people involved often have good intentions. But the political machine is a different beast. Seeing like a state, and all that.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Most individuals doing a job have income as their primary incentive. Much of what they claim besides that is a socially necessary mask. Nobody wants to be "just greedy", so they appeal to emotion and claim they have a higher cause. But how do you propose to measure if that higher cause actually exists?
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
The challenge there is that "protect the children" and "terrorists" weigh more heavily on a moral level than "protect my privacy".
- lopis 3y ago
  Bad actors can use this to actively harm children by intercepting their communication with their friends and family and putting them at risk. No need to even change arguments.
  - Jcowell 3y ago
    this is too technical , you need to be broader and more fear mongering: Bad actors will use the this to find children to harm.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      "Burning down the village in order to save it. " [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre
- pif 3y ago
  The real challenge is that none of the ones screaming "protect my privacy" can offer a solution to "protect the children" as well.
  - jermaustin1 3y ago
    The real challenge is getting people screaming "protect the children" to provide evidence that "the children" actually need protection in a meaningful way that also reduces the privacy of everyone.
    - seanw444 3y ago
      We continue to put responsibility on the government to fix our problems, when many of them nowadays are societal and cultural. You can't slap on a law to fix immorality and lack of wisdom. All you do is restrict the moral and wise. I hope we return to holding parents responsible for raising their kids properly. The world they face now is a terrifying and disgusting colossus, and facing it cannot be done without moral and wise future generations.
j45 3y ago
Some argue you have to appeal to lawmakers to make a law that prevents breaking encryption. Perhaps the avoidance of political engagement by tech inclined folks is contributing to or at least allowing some of this to progress a lot eaiser. A key part of this issue is learning about the frequency with which this type of legislation is brought up over and over again and how it might be new to some not not everyone. Perhaps bureaucracies are counting on people relatively new to encryption erosion not having context that they are far from alone.
mananaysiempre 3y ago
It’s not the first time I hear this kind of statement, and I still don’t know how I feel about it. Maybe it’s true, realistically speaking. But it’s also an admission that we can’t be better than this, and that very much tastes like defeat, like reading post-Trump Scott Adams. (Not to be confused with the idea that it “validates” emotional manipulation or whatever; that one’s externally motivated, while this one is internal.) It also, of course, contains the kind of implicit contempt for the public that has led to widespread disdain of politicians in the first place, because while many people may be easily swept along by appeals to emotion, they still usually have a good feeling for when the speaker doesn’t respect them. I don’t know if anyone’s really trying to figure out what it would take to make these tactics not work on a large scale, rather than how to use or work around them. See also: “Guided by the beauty of our weapons”[1] by Scott Alexander. Compare: Paul Graham’s statement[2] that “Java's designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them.” [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o... [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/javacover.html http://www.paulgraham.com/javacover.html
worldsayshi 3y ago
For every successful bad faith actor there are 10 useful idiots parroting their claims. This perhaps addresses them.
tinus_hn 3y ago
If we want to protect these rights they need to be guaranteed somewhere where daily politics can’t touch it, like a constitution. Otherwise it’s a battle that will only end when the rights are gone.
gnarlouse 3y ago
I disagree with this take. This implies that pathos is a more durable political mechanism than logos, or that in the short term pathos is more impactful.
ravenstine 3y ago
This assumes that said lawmakers are as intelligent or knowledgeable as they would need to be in order to purely be seeking power. I do think there's some merit to your second point, however.

cnity 3y ago

Yes. You can actually flip the script with "think of the children arguments" because banning E2EE fundamentally makes children less safe. However I suspect it's worse than this: these law maker's don't care about children, they care about power and establishing control over how citizens communicate. There is no argument to deter them, we can only hope to convince the public or else be damned to illegal activity as hackers.

hnbad 3y ago
Governments love passing bills that give the government more power. Very rarely do governments pass bills to remove that power later. This is a power grab and should be treated as such. E2EE makes police work more inconvenient but it should be inconvenient. If you want to optimize for police work convenience, you get a police state.

lynx23 3y ago

A great example why the "assume good intentions"-meme is actually pretty broken and leaves those that follow it with a disadvantage. The same way as "assume good intentions" fails when interacting with sociopaths, it also fails when interacting with lawmakers and authorities in general.

rcarr 3y ago
Commander William T. Riker: In all trust, there is the possibility of betrayal. I'm not sure you were... prepared for that. Lt. Commander Data: Were you prepared, sir? Commander William T. Riker: I don't think anybody ever is. Lt. Commander Data: Hm... Then it is better not to trust? Commander William T. Riker: Without trust, there's no friendship, no closeness. None of the emotional bonds that make us who we are. Lt. Commander Data: And yet you put yourself at risk. Commander William T. Riker: Every single time. Lt. Commander Data: Perhaps I am fortunate, sir, to be spared the emotional consequences. Commander William T. Riker: Perhaps. https://youtu.be/JCvqMk4P3zQ https://youtu.be/JCvqMk4P3zQ
- cnity 3y ago
  TNG is the most comprehensive analysis of ethics I've ever witnessed. No media or publication even comes close to delivering such a sense of understanding the timeless difficulties of the human experience.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    And yet, it portrays a "would like to have" world that couldn't be more distant from what we actually have. It is literaly (science) fiction. Using a fictious 24th century chat between a womanizer and a fancy robot to explain to a 21st century real world human they should be more trusting is rather, shall I say odd?
    - cnity 3y ago
      You're missing the point. The setting of TNG is radically different from ours for the reason you described, and yet their problems of trust are the same. Using science fiction to deliver messages pertinent to today is typical and, arguably, the goal of science fiction. It isn't odd at all.
      - lynx23 3y ago
        I don't think I am missing the point. As you mentioned, the setting of TNG is radically different from today. And I submit that in such a different setting, it is orders of magnitudes easier to trust, because (most) people from the 24th century are part of that setting, and are vastly easier to trust then people from today. So assuming a person from today just has to believe in the virtual ethics of TNG is just crazy and naiv. I know that scifi is being used to reflect on the present. That doesnt mean it is always helpful.
        cnity 3y ago
        It's not about taking these "virtual ethics" at face value. It's about watching a touching moment between characters and recognising that elements of that situation can be related to. If you are unable to consume fiction without being able to do this then I really don't know what to say.
actionfromafar 3y ago
With lawmakers it’s tricky. The individual people involved often have good intentions. But the political machine is a different beast. Seeing like a state, and all that.
- lynx23 3y ago
  Most individuals doing a job have income as their primary incentive. Much of what they claim besides that is a socially necessary mask. Nobody wants to be "just greedy", so they appeal to emotion and claim they have a higher cause. But how do you propose to measure if that higher cause actually exists?

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

The challenge there is that "protect the children" and "terrorists" weigh more heavily on a moral level than "protect my privacy".

lopis 3y ago
Bad actors can use this to actively harm children by intercepting their communication with their friends and family and putting them at risk. No need to even change arguments.
- Jcowell 3y ago
  this is too technical , you need to be broader and more fear mongering: Bad actors will use the this to find children to harm.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    "Burning down the village in order to save it. " [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre
pif 3y ago
The real challenge is that none of the ones screaming "protect my privacy" can offer a solution to "protect the children" as well.
- jermaustin1 3y ago
  The real challenge is getting people screaming "protect the children" to provide evidence that "the children" actually need protection in a meaningful way that also reduces the privacy of everyone.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    We continue to put responsibility on the government to fix our problems, when many of them nowadays are societal and cultural. You can't slap on a law to fix immorality and lack of wisdom. All you do is restrict the moral and wise. I hope we return to holding parents responsible for raising their kids properly. The world they face now is a terrifying and disgusting colossus, and facing it cannot be done without moral and wise future generations.

j45 3y ago

Some argue you have to appeal to lawmakers to make a law that prevents breaking encryption. Perhaps the avoidance of political engagement by tech inclined folks is contributing to or at least allowing some of this to progress a lot eaiser. A key part of this issue is learning about the frequency with which this type of legislation is brought up over and over again and how it might be new to some not not everyone. Perhaps bureaucracies are counting on people relatively new to encryption erosion not having context that they are far from alone.

mananaysiempre 3y ago

It’s not the first time I hear this kind of statement, and I still don’t know how I feel about it. Maybe it’s true, realistically speaking. But it’s also an admission that we can’t be better than this, and that very much tastes like defeat, like reading post-Trump Scott Adams. (Not to be confused with the idea that it “validates” emotional manipulation or whatever; that one’s externally motivated, while this one is internal.) It also, of course, contains the kind of implicit contempt for the public that has led to widespread disdain of politicians in the first place, because while many people may be easily swept along by appeals to emotion, they still usually have a good feeling for when the speaker doesn’t respect them. I don’t know if anyone’s really trying to figure out what it would take to make these tactics not work on a large scale, rather than how to use or work around them. See also: “Guided by the beauty of our weapons”[1] by Scott Alexander. Compare: Paul Graham’s statement[2] that “Java's designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them.” [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o... [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/javacover.html http://www.paulgraham.com/javacover.html

worldsayshi 3y ago

For every successful bad faith actor there are 10 useful idiots parroting their claims. This perhaps addresses them.

tinus_hn 3y ago

If we want to protect these rights they need to be guaranteed somewhere where daily politics can’t touch it, like a constitution. Otherwise it’s a battle that will only end when the rights are gone.

gnarlouse 3y ago

I disagree with this take. This implies that pathos is a more durable political mechanism than logos, or that in the short term pathos is more impactful.

ravenstine 3y ago

This assumes that said lawmakers are as intelligent or knowledgeable as they would need to be in order to purely be seeking power. I do think there's some merit to your second point, however.