6 ms·

There's enough truly bad actors out there, not everything is shades of gray. Cartels, North Korea, ISIS, etc.

by cm2012 2y ago

lolinder 2y ago
[flagged]
- ethbr1 2y ago
  I'm as much of a supporter of encryption as anyone, but I also accept that true effective encryption enables some pretty horrible things. One of those "better look your meat in the eyes, before you murder and eat it" idealism-meets-realism moments. On the whole, though, I think even with perfect encryption the remaining physical traces of illegality are sufficient for law enforcement purposes (granted: if more difficult).
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I don't think the analogies to encryption are fair because a Tor exit node is far more active in shielding criminals than the inventor of a new cryptography scheme is. The inventor merely puts out an idea that can be used for good or bad. The exit node operator is actively paying on an ongoing basis to shuttle CSAM and bomb threats. The exit node operator is also shuttling other content, so it's not wholly evil and on the balance someone might decide it's still worth it, but it's still a much less obvious ethical call than simply designing a piece of tech.
    - BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago
      Someone has to pay for distribution, maintenance, and integrations of the encryption on an ongoing basis. If it was legal to write encryption but illegal to distribute it, what would be the difference from a ban? Both tor and cryptography require an ongoing effort to provide their service.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        I see a pretty strong difference between hosting the latest build of gpg and actually running a server that moves the bytes that cause the harm. You may not, but I do.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  This is the crux of every argument against free speech, no? There is a fundamental trade off we have always had to make between safety and freedom. If you believe that privacy online is a freedom worth having, or if you believe one should be able to say whatever they want, you have to accept the bad with the good. As soon as you start gating access by judging a person by what they're trying to do privately online, or what they're trying to say, you've thrown out that freedom and made it a privledge. There's not even anything wrong with that if that's the world you would prefer to live in. Its important to know that's the tradeoff you're making though, and be prepared to accept the consequences if you one day find yourself running into new leadership that believes what you want to do online, or what you say, isn't worthy of the privilege.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Its important to know that's the tradeoff you're making though Exactly. This is all I'm saying. I don't have enough knowledge of Tor to make an argument that it does more harm than good or vice versa. But I do know that a lot of people on here are just as ignorant as I am but are quick to assume that Tor must be inherently good because it protects privacy. As I said, if you look frankly at the risks and decide that the benefits are still worth it, that's a decision I'm comfortable with you making. But that requires looking very frankly at the risks, which most seem reluctant to do in favor of high-minded abstract discussions of the merits of freedom and privacy. This subthread spawned from someone who helped facilitate a bomb threat through an exit node they were running, and that kind of concrete harm needs to be mentioned in any discussion of the merits of Tor.
    - marcus_holmes 2y ago
      And someone else pointed out that the IRA used to send bombs through the mail. Yet we are not debating shutting down the Royal Mail because of that (and rightly so). There are governments out there who kill people who criticise them, usually journalists. We need those people to continue their work. We do not want a world in which all communication is government-approved.
      - 2y ago
hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
‘Truly bad’ still relies on the perspective of the participant though. Parents point is that ‘bad’ is a matter of perspective, and that right or wrong, at lease some cartel/nk/isis operatives believe their actions are justified for some greater good, Palestine/Israel opinions and belief are obviously a more easy to understand perspective, but the point still stands.
- eptcyka 2y ago
  NK operatives feel incredibly lucky they get to not starve. Unless they got to where they are at due to nepotism.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
    I have no idea about nk politics, but if the media continually pumps out ‘the west is the reason we’re starving, join the military today!’ then they might feel lucky to both be fed, and to be serving their country.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    You don't know that, you've never been there or probably spoken to a north korean. Not saying you're wrong (i can admit i have no idea), but i'm annoyed you're swallowing narratives from warlords who have been known to lie to start wars as if it's assumed default true
- watwut 2y ago
  Hitler thought he is a good guy. Stalin thought he is good guy. Everyone thinks he is a good guy from the own perspective.
- wwtrv 2y ago
  Really? Some cartel operatives believe their actions are justified for some greater good? Well unless you count filling your own pockets a "greater good" then they are objectively extremely deranged and delusional which possibly makes them even more dangerous. > relies on the perspective of the participant though > Parents point is that ‘bad’ is a matter of perspective, and that right or wrong, Not really, though. Some things are just 'bad' (you or the perpetrator might not agree but that doesen't change that fact).
roenxi 2y ago
You're naming things that are in the grey zone though. For example I can find polls [0] suggesting that North Korea is one of the least popular countries, but not strikingly different in absolute terms than someone like Russia or the USA. Internationally speaking they aren't unusually bad actors. The problem with a "no shades of grey" stance is that in any large organised group there are going to be some good points and reasonable ideologies for why they have banded together to do what they do. They may be mistaken on important points, and it certainly may be necessary to put all empathy aside and try to ruthlessly crush them regardless of any good points they have - but in practice that approach almost always leads to terrible results compared to negotiating to emphasise the good and suppress the bad. Take ISIS - the reason we have groups like ISIS running around is generally because of a no-shades-of-grey approach taken to deal with their precursors. The US policy in the Middle East typically destabilises things (although they are hardly alone in doing that). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_North_Kor... - "Results of the 2017 BBC World Service poll. Views of North Korean Influence by country"
blitzar 2y ago
Are we the baddies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY

There's enough truly bad actors out there, not everything is shades of gray. Cartels, North Korea, ISIS, etc.

by cm2012 2y ago

There's enough truly bad actors out there, not everything is shades of gray. Cartels, North Korea, ISIS, etc.

lolinder 2y ago

[flagged]

ethbr1 2y ago
I'm as much of a supporter of encryption as anyone, but I also accept that true effective encryption enables some pretty horrible things. One of those "better look your meat in the eyes, before you murder and eat it" idealism-meets-realism moments. On the whole, though, I think even with perfect encryption the remaining physical traces of illegality are sufficient for law enforcement purposes (granted: if more difficult).
- lolinder 2y ago
  I don't think the analogies to encryption are fair because a Tor exit node is far more active in shielding criminals than the inventor of a new cryptography scheme is. The inventor merely puts out an idea that can be used for good or bad. The exit node operator is actively paying on an ongoing basis to shuttle CSAM and bomb threats. The exit node operator is also shuttling other content, so it's not wholly evil and on the balance someone might decide it's still worth it, but it's still a much less obvious ethical call than simply designing a piece of tech.
  - BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago
    Someone has to pay for distribution, maintenance, and integrations of the encryption on an ongoing basis. If it was legal to write encryption but illegal to distribute it, what would be the difference from a ban? Both tor and cryptography require an ongoing effort to provide their service.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      I see a pretty strong difference between hosting the latest build of gpg and actually running a server that moves the bytes that cause the harm. You may not, but I do.
_heimdall 2y ago
This is the crux of every argument against free speech, no? There is a fundamental trade off we have always had to make between safety and freedom. If you believe that privacy online is a freedom worth having, or if you believe one should be able to say whatever they want, you have to accept the bad with the good. As soon as you start gating access by judging a person by what they're trying to do privately online, or what they're trying to say, you've thrown out that freedom and made it a privledge. There's not even anything wrong with that if that's the world you would prefer to live in. Its important to know that's the tradeoff you're making though, and be prepared to accept the consequences if you one day find yourself running into new leadership that believes what you want to do online, or what you say, isn't worthy of the privilege.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Its important to know that's the tradeoff you're making though Exactly. This is all I'm saying. I don't have enough knowledge of Tor to make an argument that it does more harm than good or vice versa. But I do know that a lot of people on here are just as ignorant as I am but are quick to assume that Tor must be inherently good because it protects privacy. As I said, if you look frankly at the risks and decide that the benefits are still worth it, that's a decision I'm comfortable with you making. But that requires looking very frankly at the risks, which most seem reluctant to do in favor of high-minded abstract discussions of the merits of freedom and privacy. This subthread spawned from someone who helped facilitate a bomb threat through an exit node they were running, and that kind of concrete harm needs to be mentioned in any discussion of the merits of Tor.
  - marcus_holmes 2y ago
    And someone else pointed out that the IRA used to send bombs through the mail. Yet we are not debating shutting down the Royal Mail because of that (and rightly so). There are governments out there who kill people who criticise them, usually journalists. We need those people to continue their work. We do not want a world in which all communication is government-approved.
    - 2y ago

hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago

‘Truly bad’ still relies on the perspective of the participant though. Parents point is that ‘bad’ is a matter of perspective, and that right or wrong, at lease some cartel/nk/isis operatives believe their actions are justified for some greater good, Palestine/Israel opinions and belief are obviously a more easy to understand perspective, but the point still stands.

eptcyka 2y ago
NK operatives feel incredibly lucky they get to not starve. Unless they got to where they are at due to nepotism.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
  I have no idea about nk politics, but if the media continually pumps out ‘the west is the reason we’re starving, join the military today!’ then they might feel lucky to both be fed, and to be serving their country.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  You don't know that, you've never been there or probably spoken to a north korean. Not saying you're wrong (i can admit i have no idea), but i'm annoyed you're swallowing narratives from warlords who have been known to lie to start wars as if it's assumed default true
watwut 2y ago
Hitler thought he is a good guy. Stalin thought he is good guy. Everyone thinks he is a good guy from the own perspective.
wwtrv 2y ago
Really? Some cartel operatives believe their actions are justified for some greater good? Well unless you count filling your own pockets a "greater good" then they are objectively extremely deranged and delusional which possibly makes them even more dangerous. > relies on the perspective of the participant though > Parents point is that ‘bad’ is a matter of perspective, and that right or wrong, Not really, though. Some things are just 'bad' (you or the perpetrator might not agree but that doesen't change that fact).

roenxi 2y ago

You're naming things that are in the grey zone though. For example I can find polls [0] suggesting that North Korea is one of the least popular countries, but not strikingly different in absolute terms than someone like Russia or the USA. Internationally speaking they aren't unusually bad actors. The problem with a "no shades of grey" stance is that in any large organised group there are going to be some good points and reasonable ideologies for why they have banded together to do what they do. They may be mistaken on important points, and it certainly may be necessary to put all empathy aside and try to ruthlessly crush them regardless of any good points they have - but in practice that approach almost always leads to terrible results compared to negotiating to emphasise the good and suppress the bad. Take ISIS - the reason we have groups like ISIS running around is generally because of a no-shades-of-grey approach taken to deal with their precursors. The US policy in the Middle East typically destabilises things (although they are hardly alone in doing that). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_North_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_North_Kor... - "Results of the 2017 BBC World Service poll. Views of North Korean Influence by country"

blitzar 2y ago

Are we the baddies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY