7 ms·

...it's time we step in in our role as governments (both national and international) to create the regulatory environments that protect us... Or putting on oth

by uvdiv 14y ago

...it's time we step in in our role as governments (both national and international) to create the regulatory environments that protect us... Or putting on other imaginary hats: ...it's time we step in in our role as technology corporations to circumvent and mitigate broken government regulations which harm our customers... ...it's time we step in in our role as malevolent crackers to cease-and-desist thieving things which do not belong to us... ...it's time we as terrorists, child pornographers, and film pirates stop doing naughty things, so that people stop asking for digital surveillance... How is the counterfactual, "we the governments", any more sensible than the "we the corporations", or the sillier ones? Schneier isn't a government. Inference along the aligns of "If I were the government I would...", in a democracy where you and everyone who kind-of agrees with you are an insignificant fringe, is barely more rational than pretending to be any other third party. The main effect of this reasoning flaw is to accede more powers to the biggest digital-rights threat of all, national governments, out of the fatal illusion that they will be used to protect you, as imagined in your "If I were government" fantasy. The evidence strongly suggests that the government--which you are not--would much rather use new powers against you, to the benefit of established, paying clients (MPAA). ...we, as private citizens, should oppose regulation of our networks, because governments have been very bad at it, and we do not control them well enough to expect better.

nhaehnle 14y ago
How is the counterfactual, "we the governments", any more sensible than the "we the corporations", or the sillier ones? For the obvious reason that governments, at least in democratic countries, are supposed to be about the people governing themselves. Governments are a means to solve cooperation problems. Sure, this theory does not perfectly translate into practice. But it is the normative ideal of democracy. Hence your comment just comes off as snarky without really adding much to the discussion other than the point that yes, government power also must be restricted when it comes to information, just like it must be restricted in other areas of life. This is a useful point, but one that you might have made using much fewer words.
- sophacles 14y ago
  You need to understand the mindset of people like him. Basically the idea is that government is a single, monolithic entity that behaves stricly as an incompetent buffoon in all circumstances. Any good that comes from any subset of it is strictly accidental and must have been because others shepherded them to OKness, while any subset that does bad is proof the the whole is corrupt and incompetent. Further, any attempts at fixing it are obviously flawed because the government monolith is by definition unfixable. Further, the cognitive dissonance in this viewpoint is strong, in that they can see how treating any other composite entity, e.g. corporations, or a single corporation, or whatever as a monolith will be ridiculed as "you can't judge this composite entity as a whole based on a subset of it's components". Similarly when the effects of the entities they like look like the results the fear from the government, it is all OK, because some magical thinking results in not understanding what a choice really is (namely that somehow being forced to do something because it is the only choice that minimizes harm when the mechanism is not government is freedom, but when it is government it is tyranny).
  - mseebach 14y ago
    Then, of course, there's people like you, to whom profit is so suspect that you'll take your chances with the same government that brought you DCMA, PATRIOT, came within a hair-width of passing SOPA and PIPA, the war on drugs, warrantless wiretaps etc. It's not that government can't do good things, it's that when they screw up, they do it real bad, and fixing it, if at all possible, takes decades. If the government can pass a sensible internet privacy and security law, then I'm all for it. It's just that the potential of times probability of a screw up that makes everything worse for everyone is very high.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      It's not profit itself that is suspect, it is the attitude that "Under no circumstances should considerations beyond profit exist". This attitude leads to beliefs that anything at all should be allowed, if there is profit in it. Literally anything. Government provides a way to say "perhaps there are other considerations beyond profit". Since you only have the hammer of economics in your acceptable tool list, everything looks like a business nail, and you twist implausible scenarios in which business solves the problem. The rest of us say, oh there is this government tool, and there look, it solves the problem without contortion. Yes there are people to whom government becomes the hammer. But they are not the same set of people who say "lets not go overboard with the nails guys". (for all nails)
ap22213 14y ago
I, for one, would be much happier with government brokering than corporate. At least with the (democratic) government, I will have some control. There are parliamentary processes, voting, constitutional rules, albeit often slow, that give me a say. With the corporation, I only have illusion of control, zero transparency, and often contractual binding to an entity that only has incentive to take advantage of me. Now, as far as government working properly: surely, it often doesn't work well. For one, governments are often too large (in citizen count) for individuals to participate effectively. This often leads to powerful interests taking over. But, perhaps this is because our governmental structures were invented way too long ago to be current. The 'private citizen' part is interesting. I would prefer to have peer-to-peer relationships that are effective and strong enough. But, that's a ways off, isn't it?
- signalsignal 14y ago
  When dealing with a corporation, I can dump their services and go with a competitor. When dealing with a government, there are no competitors. You are automatically in their jurisdiction.
  - cwp 14y ago
    Not true. Placing yourself in the jurisdiction of a competing government is just a matter of going there. People do it all the time.
    - aeturnum 14y ago
      Point taken, though it's generally a lot easier to buy a competing product than to move to a competing country.
  - revscat 14y ago
    Unless they all agree, either through collusion or informal cooperation, to anti-consumer practices and to shut out smaller competitors. I'd much rather take my chances with democracy.
  - thisrod 14y ago

by uvdiv 14y ago

nhaehnle 14y ago

How is the counterfactual, "we the governments", any more sensible than the "we the corporations", or the sillier ones? For the obvious reason that governments, at least in democratic countries, are supposed to be about the people governing themselves. Governments are a means to solve cooperation problems. Sure, this theory does not perfectly translate into practice. But it is the normative ideal of democracy. Hence your comment just comes off as snarky without really adding much to the discussion other than the point that yes, government power also must be restricted when it comes to information, just like it must be restricted in other areas of life. This is a useful point, but one that you might have made using much fewer words.

sophacles 14y ago
You need to understand the mindset of people like him. Basically the idea is that government is a single, monolithic entity that behaves stricly as an incompetent buffoon in all circumstances. Any good that comes from any subset of it is strictly accidental and must have been because others shepherded them to OKness, while any subset that does bad is proof the the whole is corrupt and incompetent. Further, any attempts at fixing it are obviously flawed because the government monolith is by definition unfixable. Further, the cognitive dissonance in this viewpoint is strong, in that they can see how treating any other composite entity, e.g. corporations, or a single corporation, or whatever as a monolith will be ridiculed as "you can't judge this composite entity as a whole based on a subset of it's components". Similarly when the effects of the entities they like look like the results the fear from the government, it is all OK, because some magical thinking results in not understanding what a choice really is (namely that somehow being forced to do something because it is the only choice that minimizes harm when the mechanism is not government is freedom, but when it is government it is tyranny).
- mseebach 14y ago
  Then, of course, there's people like you, to whom profit is so suspect that you'll take your chances with the same government that brought you DCMA, PATRIOT, came within a hair-width of passing SOPA and PIPA, the war on drugs, warrantless wiretaps etc. It's not that government can't do good things, it's that when they screw up, they do it real bad, and fixing it, if at all possible, takes decades. If the government can pass a sensible internet privacy and security law, then I'm all for it. It's just that the potential of times probability of a screw up that makes everything worse for everyone is very high.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    It's not profit itself that is suspect, it is the attitude that "Under no circumstances should considerations beyond profit exist". This attitude leads to beliefs that anything at all should be allowed, if there is profit in it. Literally anything. Government provides a way to say "perhaps there are other considerations beyond profit". Since you only have the hammer of economics in your acceptable tool list, everything looks like a business nail, and you twist implausible scenarios in which business solves the problem. The rest of us say, oh there is this government tool, and there look, it solves the problem without contortion. Yes there are people to whom government becomes the hammer. But they are not the same set of people who say "lets not go overboard with the nails guys". (for all nails)

ap22213 14y ago

I, for one, would be much happier with government brokering than corporate. At least with the (democratic) government, I will have some control. There are parliamentary processes, voting, constitutional rules, albeit often slow, that give me a say. With the corporation, I only have illusion of control, zero transparency, and often contractual binding to an entity that only has incentive to take advantage of me. Now, as far as government working properly: surely, it often doesn't work well. For one, governments are often too large (in citizen count) for individuals to participate effectively. This often leads to powerful interests taking over. But, perhaps this is because our governmental structures were invented way too long ago to be current. The 'private citizen' part is interesting. I would prefer to have peer-to-peer relationships that are effective and strong enough. But, that's a ways off, isn't it?

signalsignal 14y ago
When dealing with a corporation, I can dump their services and go with a competitor. When dealing with a government, there are no competitors. You are automatically in their jurisdiction.
- cwp 14y ago
  Not true. Placing yourself in the jurisdiction of a competing government is just a matter of going there. People do it all the time.
  - aeturnum 14y ago
    Point taken, though it's generally a lot easier to buy a competing product than to move to a competing country.
- revscat 14y ago
  Unless they all agree, either through collusion or informal cooperation, to anti-consumer practices and to shut out smaller competitors. I'd much rather take my chances with democracy.
- thisrod 14y ago