6 ms·

"I have an inbox" is the principle behind Internet Freedom, where services can be accessed permissionlessly and people can interact freely without government re

"I have an inbox" is the principle behind Internet Freedom, where services can be accessed permissionlessly and people can interact freely without government restrictions. This takes us down a road to a centralized internet with government agencies acting as gatekeepers. Not only is this dangerous, in making political repression orders of magnitude easier, it is inefficient, as it replaces the apolitical efficiency of the permissionless internet with a bureaucratic and friction-laden process for internet interactions.

naasking 3y ago
Centralized identity also arguably weakens security. The assumption that you can rely on this identity to disincetivize this actor from behaving badly means you'll be less strict about implementing robust protocols or policies to detect or mitigate bad behaviour. Identities will be forged or circumvented at some point, and this laxer security will make the consequences of the breach so much larger as a result.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  It also creates PII honeypots that can be hacked. But I'm willing to even concede that a highly controlled internet will lead to less internet crime. But it'll be a Devil's Bargain where the price of less internet crime will be less economic activity and wealth. Repression of the general population to reduce the threat posed by bad actors is counter-productive to the larger goal of a safer and more prosperous world. Less prosperous as repression inhibits productivity and less safe because less prosperity makes people less able to reduce the risks that they face. To give a concrete example: the people of a city that has access to Uber or an Uber-like service (more prosperity) are safer than those of a city relying on older taxi technology involving flagging down cabs with no ratings (less prosperity). The former have greater freedom of movement which has a huge number of positive second order effects, many of which improve personal safety. The emergence and rapid evolution of services like Uber is largely because of Internet Freedom giving internet projects space for deployment and iteration outside the confines of regimented safety processes.
  - dcow 3y ago
    Curious, why are we okay with this when it’s your job securing trade secrets and IP but not when it’s your nation securing its citizens and preventing spam and fraud?
    - naasking 3y ago
      Is there evidence it would prevent spam and fraud? Is there evidence that it would "secure its citizens"? Also, plenty of people on this forum are not OK with securing IP either, seeing it as a serious impediment to the free flow of ideas and the advancement of human knowledge. Basically the same argument the OP just described.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Sorry, can you elaborate? You mean why are we okay with employers imposing restrictions on employees to protect trade secrets, but not with governments imposing restrictions on citizens to protect people from being spammed and defrauded?

naasking 3y ago

Centralized identity also arguably weakens security. The assumption that you can rely on this identity to disincetivize this actor from behaving badly means you'll be less strict about implementing robust protocols or policies to detect or mitigate bad behaviour. Identities will be forged or circumvented at some point, and this laxer security will make the consequences of the breach so much larger as a result.

ETH_start 3y ago
It also creates PII honeypots that can be hacked. But I'm willing to even concede that a highly controlled internet will lead to less internet crime. But it'll be a Devil's Bargain where the price of less internet crime will be less economic activity and wealth. Repression of the general population to reduce the threat posed by bad actors is counter-productive to the larger goal of a safer and more prosperous world. Less prosperous as repression inhibits productivity and less safe because less prosperity makes people less able to reduce the risks that they face. To give a concrete example: the people of a city that has access to Uber or an Uber-like service (more prosperity) are safer than those of a city relying on older taxi technology involving flagging down cabs with no ratings (less prosperity). The former have greater freedom of movement which has a huge number of positive second order effects, many of which improve personal safety. The emergence and rapid evolution of services like Uber is largely because of Internet Freedom giving internet projects space for deployment and iteration outside the confines of regimented safety processes.
- dcow 3y ago
  Curious, why are we okay with this when it’s your job securing trade secrets and IP but not when it’s your nation securing its citizens and preventing spam and fraud?
  - naasking 3y ago
    Is there evidence it would prevent spam and fraud? Is there evidence that it would "secure its citizens"? Also, plenty of people on this forum are not OK with securing IP either, seeing it as a serious impediment to the free flow of ideas and the advancement of human knowledge. Basically the same argument the OP just described.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Sorry, can you elaborate? You mean why are we okay with employers imposing restrictions on employees to protect trade secrets, but not with governments imposing restrictions on citizens to protect people from being spammed and defrauded?