4 ms·
The title certainly makes an emotional appeal to me. However I could not find justification/explanation of any moral obligation in the text. I could understand
by dfc 13y ago
The title certainly makes an emotional appeal to me. However I could not find justification/explanation of any moral obligation in the text.
I could understand a moral obligation to fight unjust surveillance, but that is not what was presented. Why am I morally obligated to increase the cost of surveillance? If society accepts the unjust surveillance the only consequences of increasing surveillance costs are economic waste and most likely justifications for new encroachments on personal liberty.
- funinobu 13y agoIt will become, if it is not already, a practical obligation. Why should anyone in the rest of the world trust American products that enable "justified" surveillance?
- dfc 13y agoI am not really sure what any of your comment means and/or why you directed it to me? Is the practical obligation the same thing as financial incentive? And what does "enable 'justified' surveillance" mean? Existing in the world enables surveillance. I have no problem with just and legal surveillance, my problem is with unjust surveillance.
- jmnicolas 13y agoI understand it as this : your moral obligation as a technical person is to protect your less computer-savvy users / kinfolks from being unjustly spied. By increasing the cost of surveillance you force intelligence agencies to make a choice : given widespread enough encryption they would have to decrypt only the real threats and not ordinary citizens. There is no reason to spy everybody unless you want to model your nation's citizen to be able to influence / control them. My 2 (euro) cents ;-)