6 ms·

Tor is designed and engineered to allow anonymity. Handguns and semi-automatics are designed and engineered to kill humans. If the creators intent matters, th

by drewrv 12y ago

Tor is designed and engineered to allow anonymity. Handguns and semi-automatics are designed and engineered to kill humans. If the creators intent matters, then there is a moral difference between the two.

tdees40 12y ago
Well yes, and I'm no gun-rights advocate (quite the opposite), but approximately 0% of guns (in the US at least) are actually used to kill people, and this is telling me that 80% of dark web activity is used for pedophilia. That seems like a very big deal.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
derefr 12y ago
I would actually disagree; handguns and semi-automatics are designed to be able to kill humans, but that is not their purpose. Their purpose, like that of many other offensive technologies, is deterrence (i.e. cooperation in iterated prisoner's dilemmas). In other words: if you know I have a gun, the weights on what strategies you will consider for selfish gain shift away from those where I would shoot you with the gun, and toward those where I wouldn't. A gun can "do its job" while never being fired once over its service life! The game theory of guns is basically a smaller-scale replica of the game theory of nuclear weapons—except that it's actually really easy, in the modern day, to ensure a power imbalance (no non-military force has a military level of gunpower), so you don't end up in the particular nuclear Nash equilibrium of everyone having the best weapon and nobody using it (you used to, though; "mutually-assured destruction" was previously known as "a Mexican standoff.")
- zbraniecki 12y ago
  The problem of guns is a bit deeper than iterated prisoners dillema (or actually, more literate). If you have a gun and I have a gun I have to take into account that you may use it. Which motivates me to preemtivly use it to prevent you from killing me. Of course you can think the same way and I can think that you can think the same way. Either way, if we both have a gun and I want to maximize my chance of staying alive (thus, fulfilling my survivial instinct), I should shoot. The difference between that and Nash's equilibrium is quite drastic in that: a) large scale is in play triggering empathic/humanistic thinking b) the person that is in position to use it is usually less desperate and or in personal danger, so it's more "you kill my people" than "you kill me". So, while I understand your logic, I would argue that the purpose of developing a weapon is to enable killing someone. The purpose of developing TOR is to enable privacy and anonimity.
  - Nelson69 12y ago
    I'm not going to argue with the game theory, it's correct and in essence, guns create the situation where by things escalate faster, when there are conflicts. We've seen this is various popular media events over the last few years, people end up dead when they shouldn't. What I will say is the intent of the creators is being completely misrepresented here. Guns are designed to satisfy a feeling of fear that may or may not be rational. Most guns never kill anyone and most aren't involved in any conflicts. They are made and sold to satisfy fears, their peddlers cater to those fears. This is also why ar-15 style carbines and other nearly useless weapons (you can't hunt with them, they have hardened core ammo that will penetrate all sorts of things after hitting the target.. ) are so popular, they are "more powerful" and satisfy a deeper or more broad fear. Almost nobody buys a gun with the intent to kill someone and I think that's an important distinction. I'd argue that tor and pgp/gnupg are used in nearly identical ways for most geeks, we're afraid to not have access to them but I don't know anybody that regularly uses tor or pgp for emails and such. It is oddly isomorphic now that I think about it, if you say the purpose of a handgun is to kill a human, I wonder what percentage of their regular use for that purpose is by criminals, it has to be pretty high, much higher than non-criminal use.
    - zbraniecki 12y ago
      I think your logic is a little bit overcomplex. I understand what you are saying - nobody wants to kill, people want to feel safe. They buy guns to feel safe, not to kill. I believe that to be true. At the same time, guns are designed to kill, not to satisfy your need of safety. There are many other items that work in a similar manner - airbags are designed to save you in an accident, but you want them in your car to feel safer. Burgler alarms are designed to react when someone is breaking into your house, but you install them to reduce the risk that someone will even try, contracts are designed to cover your ass in case of a court case, but they are signed in hope that it makes court case less likely etc. But coming back to wepons, they are designed to kill. You can argue that fake guns are designed to scare attackers, but real guns are designed to kill. Their parameters, their tests, their ads, their designs, are all focus on precision of shooting, targeting, and efficency of the bullet to penetrate the target. They are designed to be a good tool for killing. Tor is designed to be a good tool for privacy and anonimity. You can test it using a simple mental experiment - if the needs of pedophiles and people needing anonimity diverged and became incompatible, I honestly believe that Tor would be developed to fulfill the needs of the latter group. If the need of people looking to feel safe would diverge from the efficency of a weapon in killing, then I honestly believe that the weapon manufacturers would keep designing weapons to be efficient in killing. > but I don't know anybody that regularly uses tor or pgp for emails and such. That's a fallacy here. You may not know people who use it, because you may, guessing here, not spend time with people who have a reason to be afraid of their governments. You may not be part of the wikileaks movement. You may not know journalists who track mafia in Italy or Russia. Those are just examples. And, because I work on multiple open source projects, I definitely know many people using PGP on daily basis. > if you say the purpose of a handgun is to kill a human, I wonder what percentage of their regular use for that purpose is by criminals, it has to be pretty high, much higher than non-criminal use. I guess you are right. :) But I'm not sure how it relates to the topic of authors intentions.
quotemstr 12y ago
Your perspective is showing: one could reformulate your post as "Handguns are designed for self-protection. Tor is designed to put internet users above the law." The whole idea of drawing moral distinctions between objects is a canard. Objects (including atomic bombs and function-enhanced H5N1) lack agency, so they are of course morally neutral. This neutrality doesn't preclude our talking about the morally-relevant effects these objects have on society though. It's plausible under the utilitarian calculus that a ban on Tor would be in our collective interest. I personally don't think it is, but the question of Tor's overall utility is legitimate and the answer isn't immediately obvious.
stvswn 12y ago
Semi-automatics are not designed and engineered to kill humans more than any other firearm. "Semi-automatic" simply means that you don't have to "re-cock" after every shot. You're probably conflating the term with "assault weapons," which is a marketing term that manufacturers use to mean "hunting rifles with gadgets and cosmetics so that they look military-style." Weapons designed for military use are definitely designed to kill people, that's absolutely true -- but the moral standing of such killing depends on the actors, right? Who is doing the killing of whom and for what purpose is what decides the morals. The firearm is amoral. So is software. Tor and guns do not have a "moral difference" because inanimate objects can't have morality to begin with.

by drewrv 12y ago

tdees40 12y ago

Well yes, and I'm no gun-rights advocate (quite the opposite), but approximately 0% of guns (in the US at least) are actually used to kill people, and this is telling me that 80% of dark web activity is used for pedophilia. That seems like a very big deal.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

derefr 12y ago

I would actually disagree; handguns and semi-automatics are designed to be able to kill humans, but that is not their purpose. Their purpose, like that of many other offensive technologies, is deterrence (i.e. cooperation in iterated prisoner's dilemmas). In other words: if you know I have a gun, the weights on what strategies you will consider for selfish gain shift away from those where I would shoot you with the gun, and toward those where I wouldn't. A gun can "do its job" while never being fired once over its service life! The game theory of guns is basically a smaller-scale replica of the game theory of nuclear weapons—except that it's actually really easy, in the modern day, to ensure a power imbalance (no non-military force has a military level of gunpower), so you don't end up in the particular nuclear Nash equilibrium of everyone having the best weapon and nobody using it (you used to, though; "mutually-assured destruction" was previously known as "a Mexican standoff.")

zbraniecki 12y ago
The problem of guns is a bit deeper than iterated prisoners dillema (or actually, more literate). If you have a gun and I have a gun I have to take into account that you may use it. Which motivates me to preemtivly use it to prevent you from killing me. Of course you can think the same way and I can think that you can think the same way. Either way, if we both have a gun and I want to maximize my chance of staying alive (thus, fulfilling my survivial instinct), I should shoot. The difference between that and Nash's equilibrium is quite drastic in that: a) large scale is in play triggering empathic/humanistic thinking b) the person that is in position to use it is usually less desperate and or in personal danger, so it's more "you kill my people" than "you kill me". So, while I understand your logic, I would argue that the purpose of developing a weapon is to enable killing someone. The purpose of developing TOR is to enable privacy and anonimity.
- Nelson69 12y ago
  I'm not going to argue with the game theory, it's correct and in essence, guns create the situation where by things escalate faster, when there are conflicts. We've seen this is various popular media events over the last few years, people end up dead when they shouldn't. What I will say is the intent of the creators is being completely misrepresented here. Guns are designed to satisfy a feeling of fear that may or may not be rational. Most guns never kill anyone and most aren't involved in any conflicts. They are made and sold to satisfy fears, their peddlers cater to those fears. This is also why ar-15 style carbines and other nearly useless weapons (you can't hunt with them, they have hardened core ammo that will penetrate all sorts of things after hitting the target.. ) are so popular, they are "more powerful" and satisfy a deeper or more broad fear. Almost nobody buys a gun with the intent to kill someone and I think that's an important distinction. I'd argue that tor and pgp/gnupg are used in nearly identical ways for most geeks, we're afraid to not have access to them but I don't know anybody that regularly uses tor or pgp for emails and such. It is oddly isomorphic now that I think about it, if you say the purpose of a handgun is to kill a human, I wonder what percentage of their regular use for that purpose is by criminals, it has to be pretty high, much higher than non-criminal use.
  - zbraniecki 12y ago
    I think your logic is a little bit overcomplex. I understand what you are saying - nobody wants to kill, people want to feel safe. They buy guns to feel safe, not to kill. I believe that to be true. At the same time, guns are designed to kill, not to satisfy your need of safety. There are many other items that work in a similar manner - airbags are designed to save you in an accident, but you want them in your car to feel safer. Burgler alarms are designed to react when someone is breaking into your house, but you install them to reduce the risk that someone will even try, contracts are designed to cover your ass in case of a court case, but they are signed in hope that it makes court case less likely etc. But coming back to wepons, they are designed to kill. You can argue that fake guns are designed to scare attackers, but real guns are designed to kill. Their parameters, their tests, their ads, their designs, are all focus on precision of shooting, targeting, and efficency of the bullet to penetrate the target. They are designed to be a good tool for killing. Tor is designed to be a good tool for privacy and anonimity. You can test it using a simple mental experiment - if the needs of pedophiles and people needing anonimity diverged and became incompatible, I honestly believe that Tor would be developed to fulfill the needs of the latter group. If the need of people looking to feel safe would diverge from the efficency of a weapon in killing, then I honestly believe that the weapon manufacturers would keep designing weapons to be efficient in killing. > but I don't know anybody that regularly uses tor or pgp for emails and such. That's a fallacy here. You may not know people who use it, because you may, guessing here, not spend time with people who have a reason to be afraid of their governments. You may not be part of the wikileaks movement. You may not know journalists who track mafia in Italy or Russia. Those are just examples. And, because I work on multiple open source projects, I definitely know many people using PGP on daily basis. > if you say the purpose of a handgun is to kill a human, I wonder what percentage of their regular use for that purpose is by criminals, it has to be pretty high, much higher than non-criminal use. I guess you are right. :) But I'm not sure how it relates to the topic of authors intentions.

quotemstr 12y ago

Your perspective is showing: one could reformulate your post as "Handguns are designed for self-protection. Tor is designed to put internet users above the law." The whole idea of drawing moral distinctions between objects is a canard. Objects (including atomic bombs and function-enhanced H5N1) lack agency, so they are of course morally neutral. This neutrality doesn't preclude our talking about the morally-relevant effects these objects have on society though. It's plausible under the utilitarian calculus that a ban on Tor would be in our collective interest. I personally don't think it is, but the question of Tor's overall utility is legitimate and the answer isn't immediately obvious.

stvswn 12y ago

Semi-automatics are not designed and engineered to kill humans more than any other firearm. "Semi-automatic" simply means that you don't have to "re-cock" after every shot. You're probably conflating the term with "assault weapons," which is a marketing term that manufacturers use to mean "hunting rifles with gadgets and cosmetics so that they look military-style." Weapons designed for military use are definitely designed to kill people, that's absolutely true -- but the moral standing of such killing depends on the actors, right? Who is doing the killing of whom and for what purpose is what decides the morals. The firearm is amoral. So is software. Tor and guns do not have a "moral difference" because inanimate objects can't have morality to begin with.