4 ms·

I don't see why you think they don't understand the tech. This is going to be heresy here, but honestly I think it's a reasonable position. Not one I would tak

I don't see why you think they don't understand the tech. This is going to be heresy here, but honestly I think it's a reasonable position. Not one I would take, but reasonable. For the first time in human history there can be large scale communication it is mathematically impossible for governments to have any access to. If you believe that governments are doing the job of protecting their citizens (and many do), it's entirely reasonable for them to want this type of access. They have it with the postal service, and analogue phones and the world didn't collapse, and many criminals got caught.

pjc50 1y ago
The problem is that digital excludes the middle. The analogue systems had fundamental limits on how many people could be surveilled, and still we had abuses of the system. The digital system makes you choose between "surveil absolutely everyone all of the time" and "surveil nobody". Note that you mention the postal service. Remember the Horizon Post Office scandal, where there was a huge swathe of wrongful prosecutions?
ryukafalz 1y ago
But also for the first time in human history, it's possible to do large-scale surveillance without large-scale human effort. The power of the network goes both ways. Phone wiretapping (until recently I suppose) and mail inspection required a human to take some action to listen in; you couldn't just monitor everyone's communications. Now you can.
- CJefferson 1y ago
  I agree, there are many complex issues involved here. But I get annoyed at tech people (not saying you!) that it is self-evident that any kind of law enforcement methods of access is obviously wrong.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > I get annoyed at tech people (not saying you!) that it is self-evident that any kind of law enforcement methods of access is obviously wrong. I don't think anybody is saying that the motivations are bad. We all want safety, right? The closest thing I hear is, they feel that the cons often outweigh the pros. I think this correlates with their trust in authorities, given the countless abuses we see authorities perpetrating when granted power. There's a reason "think of the children!" is literally a joke mocking safety-based pretexts for reductions in rights.

pjc50 1y ago

The problem is that digital excludes the middle. The analogue systems had fundamental limits on how many people could be surveilled, and still we had abuses of the system. The digital system makes you choose between "surveil absolutely everyone all of the time" and "surveil nobody". Note that you mention the postal service. Remember the Horizon Post Office scandal, where there was a huge swathe of wrongful prosecutions?

ryukafalz 1y ago

But also for the first time in human history, it's possible to do large-scale surveillance without large-scale human effort. The power of the network goes both ways. Phone wiretapping (until recently I suppose) and mail inspection required a human to take some action to listen in; you couldn't just monitor everyone's communications. Now you can.

CJefferson 1y ago
I agree, there are many complex issues involved here. But I get annoyed at tech people (not saying you!) that it is self-evident that any kind of law enforcement methods of access is obviously wrong.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > I get annoyed at tech people (not saying you!) that it is self-evident that any kind of law enforcement methods of access is obviously wrong. I don't think anybody is saying that the motivations are bad. We all want safety, right? The closest thing I hear is, they feel that the cons often outweigh the pros. I think this correlates with their trust in authorities, given the countless abuses we see authorities perpetrating when granted power. There's a reason "think of the children!" is literally a joke mocking safety-based pretexts for reductions in rights.