3 ms·

It's funny, I've come to think of the HN community as being the most skeptical and contrarian of all internet forums. (Jokingly, to the point that if someone po

by b1daly 14y ago

It's funny, I've come to think of the HN community as being the most skeptical and contrarian of all internet forums. (Jokingly, to the point that if someone posted a blog about how Hitler was evil, there would be an a reliable proportion of posters here pointing out how the citation free post was rhetorically weak and that there were some little understood benefits to the Nazi regime). Now, this short excerpt of Assange's argument strikes me as outlandish, and there's only a couple of skeptical posts to be found! There are a bunch of problems that I can see with it, I'll just list a few off the top of my head. 1) It's a predictive argument, which is hard (prediction). The prediction is that society will become worse because of the internet. 2) Glorification of the past: a casual consideration of societies and governments of the past highlights that they are, all of them, horrible. You don't have to go back far in US history to get to an amazingly evil government (1970s CIA activities for example) 3) The increased transparency brought on by the internet is a good thing. ,I'm glad Petraeus got his ass busted, as the phony hero creation meme has been weakened that provides cover for US misdeeds in the war theaters. Governments have been literally getting away with murder since time immemorial. There is a better chance of stopping them if there is, in general, more public, unencrypted communication (this is precisely what brought Petraeus down) 4) There is no way the public at large is going to start encrypting their communication. That kind of secrecy is just not that useful to the average citizen. It is also too complicated to understand for busy non-hackers. 5) The benefits created by network effects will be significantly diminished by introducing private encryption. One of the main uses of the internet is the creation of large scale markets. Markets are by definition public, or at least open to a group. To get efficient markets you need a sizable group. To keep access to a market private gets harder the more participants it has. Fairly determined efforts to conduct secret, anonymous actions by hacker groups like Anonymous have proved to be easily broken by law enforcement. And these are hackers! 6) Efforts at resisting tyranny can be demonized, and crushed, more readily if conducted in secret. The fact that Wikileaks acted somewhat non-anonymously to release supposedly secret data to public is what made it effective. If Assange had tried to undermine the secret making apparatus of the power structure in secret, he would have been just another terrorist (and maybe dead) I could go on, but my point is that I think what Assange is promoting here is pointless. I can't even conceive of how private keys could be distributed to a large network without being easily compromised. I would love to hear some of you smarter folk comment on this.

narag 14y ago
1) It's a predictive argument We might be there already. 2) Glorification of the past I don't think so. More like a broken promise. 3) The increased transparency brought on by the internet is a good thing. ,I'm glad Petraeus got his ass busted That's just disingenuous. The secrets that really matters about military operations are not public in any way, while you are happy because this guy gets caught cheating his wife. Meh. 4) There is no way the public at large is going to start encrypting their communication. Oh, that's a predictive argument. Make something usable and we'll see. 5) The benefits created by network effects will be significantly diminished by introducing private encryption. So that networks effects are more important that freedom, aren't they? 6) Efforts at resisting tyranny can be demonized, and crushed, more readily if conducted in secret. Sorry, that's total nonsense.
- b1daly 14y ago
  I can see how you can think I'm being disingenuous on point three, let me expand a bit. I'm not glad he got busted for cheating on his wife just because. My point is that the military uses propaganda, spread through the mainstream media, to further it's agenda (which I think is bad). Petraeus' image as a straight shooting, old school, unimpeachable hero type was used as a cover for the morally unsavory aspects of our recent wars. It just happens that he was brought down by a very human indiscretion which was revealed through the use of an insecure network. It illustrates that the indiscriminate sharing of information on public networks gives increased transparency into the lives of people, including the rich and powerful. Even if they know how to cover their tracks, they can be exposed through the insecure practices of "civilians" with whom they interact. Something that Assange doesn't quite address in the excerpt is that not only do people not care about about secure communications, they actually want their personal information on the "public" web. Most people do not have a group of people they would like to communicate with but in a highly secure manner. The exception would be for affairs. Even people working for companies that have requirements for secrecy need low friction method of exchange of information with larger networks of individuals that they don't know well. There are negative consequence to this (specifically the ease with which the govt can spy on its citizens, as Assange points out). But the cost to individuals, and to society, is too high for whatever benefits a widely used "darknet" would have. The value of the internet is connecting large numbers of people who are engaged in the various life activities that people do. It is not compatible with secure networks. The porousness is a feature not a bug. I mean really, what sort of activities would an average person find it useful to use a secure network for? Illicit, illegal, or insurgent. Not a real high demand for this. FWIW, I think what Assange has done with Wikileaks is heroic. I just think his vision of a sort of private internet is impossible. It would have to be based on "insiders" and "outsiders," a sort of division in the population. Those sorts of division are only maintained through nasty applications of "real life" power as far as I can see.

by b1daly 14y ago

narag 14y ago

1) It's a predictive argument We might be there already. 2) Glorification of the past I don't think so. More like a broken promise. 3) The increased transparency brought on by the internet is a good thing. ,I'm glad Petraeus got his ass busted That's just disingenuous. The secrets that really matters about military operations are not public in any way, while you are happy because this guy gets caught cheating his wife. Meh. 4) There is no way the public at large is going to start encrypting their communication. Oh, that's a predictive argument. Make something usable and we'll see. 5) The benefits created by network effects will be significantly diminished by introducing private encryption. So that networks effects are more important that freedom, aren't they? 6) Efforts at resisting tyranny can be demonized, and crushed, more readily if conducted in secret. Sorry, that's total nonsense.

b1daly 14y ago
I can see how you can think I'm being disingenuous on point three, let me expand a bit. I'm not glad he got busted for cheating on his wife just because. My point is that the military uses propaganda, spread through the mainstream media, to further it's agenda (which I think is bad). Petraeus' image as a straight shooting, old school, unimpeachable hero type was used as a cover for the morally unsavory aspects of our recent wars. It just happens that he was brought down by a very human indiscretion which was revealed through the use of an insecure network. It illustrates that the indiscriminate sharing of information on public networks gives increased transparency into the lives of people, including the rich and powerful. Even if they know how to cover their tracks, they can be exposed through the insecure practices of "civilians" with whom they interact. Something that Assange doesn't quite address in the excerpt is that not only do people not care about about secure communications, they actually want their personal information on the "public" web. Most people do not have a group of people they would like to communicate with but in a highly secure manner. The exception would be for affairs. Even people working for companies that have requirements for secrecy need low friction method of exchange of information with larger networks of individuals that they don't know well. There are negative consequence to this (specifically the ease with which the govt can spy on its citizens, as Assange points out). But the cost to individuals, and to society, is too high for whatever benefits a widely used "darknet" would have. The value of the internet is connecting large numbers of people who are engaged in the various life activities that people do. It is not compatible with secure networks. The porousness is a feature not a bug. I mean really, what sort of activities would an average person find it useful to use a secure network for? Illicit, illegal, or insurgent. Not a real high demand for this. FWIW, I think what Assange has done with Wikileaks is heroic. I just think his vision of a sort of private internet is impossible. It would have to be based on "insiders" and "outsiders," a sort of division in the population. Those sorts of division are only maintained through nasty applications of "real life" power as far as I can see.