3 ms·

This is a totally false and a distraction. We don't need a trusted execution environment. We just need rights enshrined in law. Rights do not have to be guar

by gress 12y ago

This is a totally false and a distraction. We don't need a trusted execution environment. We just need rights enshrined in law. Rights do not have to be guaranteed by bulletproof technology in order to be valuable. We might not be able to guarantee that corporations never overstep the bounds we set, but the threat of a lawsuit can be a powerful disincentive.

stcredzero 12y ago
This is a totally false and a distraction. We don't need a trusted execution environment. We just need rights enshrined in law. From a certain POV, this is correct, and I don't disagree with the general aim. Rights do not have to be guaranteed by bulletproof technology in order to be valuable. Entirely correct. What's of more concern is that we not only have a general public, but an "expert" population of programmers and other technical workers that doesn't make decisions about these things in an informed rational way. This is why I get on the soapbox in support of trusted execution environments and point out how they can be used against the authorities. the threat of a lawsuit can be a powerful disincentive. But I would argue that the "trusting trust" problem encompasses not only privacy and security, but political power as well. When transparency itself is strictly voluntary and comes into competition with the temptation of money and great power, we've seen that such a deterrent loses some of its potency. The threat of a lawsuit also doesn't work as well against certain governments in certain contexts. You may well be right that technology is a distraction, for now. The social and legal framework might be the thing to establish first.
- gress 12y ago
  Sure - some kind of trusted execution environment (which I would argue we don't understand well yet) would be an ideal solution. But... a trusted execution environment would be no use if it wasn't mandated, so it is secondary to having rights enshrined in law. And yes, there is a trust problem. But I think it would be very difficult to operate a massive data collection empire on the scale of Google or Facebook without at least one whistleblower exposing it.
whythehellnot 12y ago
That's nonsense. If anything, governments are guaranteed to break their own laws whenever it's most convenient for them. We absolutely need a communication system that cannot be governed by any government. It does not need to have an altruistic DRM implementation to work. It needs security so pointlessly difficult to break through that it'd be cheaper and easier to do analog surveillance.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  governments are guaranteed to break their own laws whenever it's most convenient for them...It needs security so pointlessly difficult to break through that it'd be cheaper and easier to do analog surveillance. In that case, you also need "altruistic DRM" -- otherwise private data gets into the wrong hands and bad actors do with it what they will. You're sounding like a loud disagreement in tone, but the words themselves actually spell out strong support for my idea.
  - whythehellnot 12y ago
    What does DRM have over strong cryptography that does not require good actors in order to work? Besides, so long so there is government, there can be no useful good actors unless they're untouchable trillionaires that are above the law.
    - gress 12y ago
      You seem to have a binary view of who is a good actor or not. Are you a good actor, and if so, how do you know?
      - whythehellnot 12y ago
        I'll admit that I didn't think of a potentially DRM linchpin good actor that hides from the government and is as untouchable as the incorruptible trillionaire. The reason I think this way is that I'm sure that unless you're a radical/extremist in your principals, your vulnerable to exploitation from authorities and anyone who is a bad actor more powerful than they are. Which probably also tells you that I think people are generally bad actors by nature. Due to greed & a lack of integrity when endowed with a position of power. Any systems designed with the notion that people are generally good actors tend to be exploited and corrupted over time. "Are you a good actor, and if so, how do you know?" Perhaps? I can't know that because I've never been in such a position that would reveal my lesser traits. I've never been given into logical fallacies under pressure from multitudes of bad actors that would love to see me fail so they could get what they want. Which is why I've commented before on why I think the government should be designed in a way that forces bad actors to be good actors by encouraging them to follow their natural instincts to be positively selfish instead of negatively.

by gress 12y ago

stcredzero 12y ago

This is a totally false and a distraction. We don't need a trusted execution environment. We just need rights enshrined in law. From a certain POV, this is correct, and I don't disagree with the general aim. Rights do not have to be guaranteed by bulletproof technology in order to be valuable. Entirely correct. What's of more concern is that we not only have a general public, but an "expert" population of programmers and other technical workers that doesn't make decisions about these things in an informed rational way. This is why I get on the soapbox in support of trusted execution environments and point out how they can be used against the authorities. the threat of a lawsuit can be a powerful disincentive. But I would argue that the "trusting trust" problem encompasses not only privacy and security, but political power as well. When transparency itself is strictly voluntary and comes into competition with the temptation of money and great power, we've seen that such a deterrent loses some of its potency. The threat of a lawsuit also doesn't work as well against certain governments in certain contexts. You may well be right that technology is a distraction, for now. The social and legal framework might be the thing to establish first.

gress 12y ago
Sure - some kind of trusted execution environment (which I would argue we don't understand well yet) would be an ideal solution. But... a trusted execution environment would be no use if it wasn't mandated, so it is secondary to having rights enshrined in law. And yes, there is a trust problem. But I think it would be very difficult to operate a massive data collection empire on the scale of Google or Facebook without at least one whistleblower exposing it.

whythehellnot 12y ago

That's nonsense. If anything, governments are guaranteed to break their own laws whenever it's most convenient for them. We absolutely need a communication system that cannot be governed by any government. It does not need to have an altruistic DRM implementation to work. It needs security so pointlessly difficult to break through that it'd be cheaper and easier to do analog surveillance.

stcredzero 12y ago
governments are guaranteed to break their own laws whenever it's most convenient for them...It needs security so pointlessly difficult to break through that it'd be cheaper and easier to do analog surveillance. In that case, you also need "altruistic DRM" -- otherwise private data gets into the wrong hands and bad actors do with it what they will. You're sounding like a loud disagreement in tone, but the words themselves actually spell out strong support for my idea.
- whythehellnot 12y ago
  What does DRM have over strong cryptography that does not require good actors in order to work? Besides, so long so there is government, there can be no useful good actors unless they're untouchable trillionaires that are above the law.
  - gress 12y ago
    You seem to have a binary view of who is a good actor or not. Are you a good actor, and if so, how do you know?
    - whythehellnot 12y ago
      I'll admit that I didn't think of a potentially DRM linchpin good actor that hides from the government and is as untouchable as the incorruptible trillionaire. The reason I think this way is that I'm sure that unless you're a radical/extremist in your principals, your vulnerable to exploitation from authorities and anyone who is a bad actor more powerful than they are. Which probably also tells you that I think people are generally bad actors by nature. Due to greed & a lack of integrity when endowed with a position of power. Any systems designed with the notion that people are generally good actors tend to be exploited and corrupted over time. "Are you a good actor, and if so, how do you know?" Perhaps? I can't know that because I've never been in such a position that would reveal my lesser traits. I've never been given into logical fallacies under pressure from multitudes of bad actors that would love to see me fail so they could get what they want. Which is why I've commented before on why I think the government should be designed in a way that forces bad actors to be good actors by encouraging them to follow their natural instincts to be positively selfish instead of negatively.