4 ms·

Yes, I do think the benefits of free speech outweigh risks from criminals who will publish bad software There's many ways to combat crime. Banning free distrib

by Aachen 1y ago

Yes, I do think the benefits of free speech outweigh risks from criminals who will publish bad software There's many ways to combat crime. Banning free distribution of software is one of the options but not the one I'd pick from the menu first

notepad0x90 1y ago
You're still freely publishing any apps you want. You want anonymous speech which isn't the same as free speech. And the benefits of that certainly doesn't outweigh harm caused against even one innocent person. "There's many ways to combat crime" - name one effective way to combat sideloading of apps, that is anywhere as effective as id verification of devs?
- Aachen 1y ago
  Here's one: prosecuting the devs that currently spread malware, block (or warn users for) foreign sources that don't cooperate with law enforcement You don't need an ID to find the person behind an IP address + timestamp. The line physically goes to a subscriber (yes, also with CGNAT: ISPs are required to keep logs for a reason). The police can do that in any country. Google isn't an elected government that I want to sit on that seat of power Besides, criminals by definition don't care about laws. Photoediting an ID is not particularly hard, but quite illegal. Tackling the source (the person) ought to help more than impacting everyone who uses a specific distribution mechanism
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    The devs that write malware are typically in a different jurisdiction, and how can you prosecute them if they're anonymous? That's what this measure does! The moment they use IPs to find devs and prosecute them , every malware dev will just use a vpn or Tor. or just use a compromised device to route their connection. This is a long running cat and mouse game. Criminals care about laws if breaking the law is difficult, because laws have consequences. ID verification isn't as simple as "hey, it's an ID, all is good", and now you're on the hook for the much more serious crime of faking IDs and defrauding. It doesn't need to prevent all criminals, it just needs to be a good enough measure that it reduces the amount of abuse significantly.
- beeflet 1y ago
  There is no need to regulate anonymous speech if you uphold the principle of free speech. The only reason why you want to de-anonymize speech is to apply consequences for some forms of speech.
loandbehold 1y ago
You are free publish source code for your app. You are free to publish unsigned .apk and people who want it will find a way to install it. Once app is installed it's more than a speech: it's a potentially hazardous product. The analogy is how chemists are free to publish formula for any pharmaceutical but are not free to put pharmaceuticals on the market without approval.
- beeflet 1y ago
  That is a totally inappropriate comparison. Knowing the chemical formula for cocaine does not give me access to cocaine. Whereas access to the source code of a program nessisarially gives you access to the program. In one case, it is efficacious to restrict the product without restricting the information. In the other case it is not.

by Aachen 1y ago

notepad0x90 1y ago

You're still freely publishing any apps you want. You want anonymous speech which isn't the same as free speech. And the benefits of that certainly doesn't outweigh harm caused against even one innocent person. "There's many ways to combat crime" - name one effective way to combat sideloading of apps, that is anywhere as effective as id verification of devs?

Aachen 1y ago
Here's one: prosecuting the devs that currently spread malware, block (or warn users for) foreign sources that don't cooperate with law enforcement You don't need an ID to find the person behind an IP address + timestamp. The line physically goes to a subscriber (yes, also with CGNAT: ISPs are required to keep logs for a reason). The police can do that in any country. Google isn't an elected government that I want to sit on that seat of power Besides, criminals by definition don't care about laws. Photoediting an ID is not particularly hard, but quite illegal. Tackling the source (the person) ought to help more than impacting everyone who uses a specific distribution mechanism
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  The devs that write malware are typically in a different jurisdiction, and how can you prosecute them if they're anonymous? That's what this measure does! The moment they use IPs to find devs and prosecute them , every malware dev will just use a vpn or Tor. or just use a compromised device to route their connection. This is a long running cat and mouse game. Criminals care about laws if breaking the law is difficult, because laws have consequences. ID verification isn't as simple as "hey, it's an ID, all is good", and now you're on the hook for the much more serious crime of faking IDs and defrauding. It doesn't need to prevent all criminals, it just needs to be a good enough measure that it reduces the amount of abuse significantly.
beeflet 1y ago
There is no need to regulate anonymous speech if you uphold the principle of free speech. The only reason why you want to de-anonymize speech is to apply consequences for some forms of speech.

loandbehold 1y ago

You are free publish source code for your app. You are free to publish unsigned .apk and people who want it will find a way to install it. Once app is installed it's more than a speech: it's a potentially hazardous product. The analogy is how chemists are free to publish formula for any pharmaceutical but are not free to put pharmaceuticals on the market without approval.

beeflet 1y ago
That is a totally inappropriate comparison. Knowing the chemical formula for cocaine does not give me access to cocaine. Whereas access to the source code of a program nessisarially gives you access to the program. In one case, it is efficacious to restrict the product without restricting the information. In the other case it is not.