5 ms·

Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us to Greater Harm

55 points by bootload 12y ago

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
I hate to say it but I think there is no way to prevent this. If the human experience shows us anything it is that those with power will use any instrument to exert its will. The internet and computing generally was not born from anarchy and does not exist free from powerful influence from the start. There is no man-made system that is not corrupted by powerful interests.
navait 12y ago
There is no war on general purpose computers. If you want one, you can get one. Some people need one, some people don't. What we are finding is that very few people wanted a general purpose computer in the first place. They wanted to do a thing, and a general purpose computers did that thing(also many other things they didn't want to do or understood). You could buy a dvd player that was region unlocked. You can purchase unlocked phones. You don't have to buy an iphone, or stick to the Google play store but it's nice to know that you could live in the garden if you wanted to. Is the NSA a problem? absolutely. Could requirements like cell-phone termination be used for nefarious means? yes. But we built strong democratic institutions for a reason, and we should be turning to them, not some ideology that helps only the technologically gifted. Mr. Doctrow needs to argue against policy on it's individual merits, not claim it violates some FSF ideology he loves and fearmonger luddites.
- hughw 12y ago
  He did argue against the policy on its merits, providing several concrete examples where applying the law enables malefactors to do bad things to you. And nothing in the article refers to the FSF or the concept of free or open source software.
  - navait 12y ago
    The policies he specifically mentioned: -Region-locked DVD's - never really enforced, and DVD's were irrelevant years ago anyways. -App Store - decision by a private company that many like! Not policy. -Sony Rootkit. Happened in 2005, never happened again. Not a policy. -prohibiting printing gun.stl on your 3-D printer. If you think that's the future in the US, you are flat out retarded. -Self-Driving cars that are self-disabling. Too far in the future to really hammer out a policy framework for yet. Unclear why the government would demand that law enforcement be able to control remotely. -California. The only policy that's actually real and is pretty minor. Only can be used as theft deterrent. Even if he doesn't directly mention free software, it's intellectual inheritance is so clearly from RMS that I don't think it really needs to go without saying.
    - foolrush 12y ago
      The belief that somehow private companies make decisions “just fine” highlights the socio-cultural side. It doesn't take much introspection to cite bleak moments from our collective North American histories that were socially acceptable, while being rather dubious ethically. Smoking was once a “free choice” and desired, and came with it willful years of of ignorance of the influence of second hand smoke. If we dig deeper, we could spend much time discussing slavery and sufferage other such messes that, while abhorrent by today's standards, were perfect cultural fits during their respective reigns. And implicitly bound to private enterprise. Private enterprise doesn't make any of his opinions dissolve, nor less relevant. On the contrary, as those cultural and ideological vantages are precisely why his points are relevant.
      - mc32 12y ago
        I think we can only evaluate things on their present merits. One can't go back in time and indict previous cultures for their norms. So, perhaps one day in the future people will look at us and find it repugnant. That may very well be the case, but that's how it has to be. You evaluate by your current standards not by an undetermined future enlightened state (or who knows, things could all go backwards some day just the same.)
    - emiliobumachar 12y ago
- electronvolt 12y ago
  I'd actually wonder (and somewhat worry) what effect that has from a social perspective on future generations of programmers. Certainly not all programmers start as kids, but it seems like a huge number of them do, and it seems like almost all of the really, really excellent ones I've met and worked with started programming before the second half of high school (I can think of one notable exception who started in his second year of college). However: many, perhaps most, of them did not start on their own general purpose computer: they all seem to have been exposed to a general purpose computer through their parents and picked it up from there. If many, or most, people do not actually /need/ a general purpose computer (as you argue, and as I kind of agree), then that kind of access would be greatly hampered. I worry about the potential educational effect that would have for people who come into programming the way I and multiple people I know did, without any outside prodding and long before anyone sane starts thinking about their child's future career in some industry. I know that the main advance that computers gave my parents, professionally, over typewriters was the ability to google and the backspace key, followed shortly by .mp3s and the ability to burn CDs (one is a professor of music). If those things were divorced from general purpose computing, I wouldn't have had access to a general purpose computer until easily 5 years after I made my first website, 4 years after I started to learn a Turing complete language, and two years after I started programming in earnest/doing more than snippets of javascript as part of web design (Java, followed shortly after by scheme). I'm not sure I would have actually gone into computer science/programming as a field if I hadn't fallen into it early on: there are a lot of other fields that people were genuinely telling me I should pay attention to or get good at (math, physics, science in general), and I worry that din would have shut out my own interests if I hadn't stumbled into them as early as I did. This is why devices like the iPad worried me from when they were released (when I was in high school) onward: what would I have done if my parents owned an iPad instead of a Mac? If that walled garden was my only exposure to computing at a young age? (I certainly wouldn't have been given the keys to the Apple store to buy educational games about programming, my parents didn't trust me as a child with their money.) I'm not sure I'd be in this field (which I enjoy very much), as there were almost no examples of 'other programmers' in my life until I was in high school, and that was only because I sought them out.
  - navait 12y ago
dang 12y ago
Url changed from http://boingboing.net/2014/12/26/war-on-general-purpose-compute.html http://boingboing.net/2014/12/26/war-on-general-purpose-comp..., which points to this. Discussion of related talk from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805039.
- bootload 12y ago
  thx dang, I usually do this (pt to most authoritative source) - notice how the articles cluster & some have more worth than others.
tzs 12y ago
> if the state of California continues to insist that cell phones have kill switches allowing remote instructions to be executed on your phone that you can't countermand or even know about California cannot "continue" to insist on this, because it never started to insist on it. The California kill switch law does not mandate that you cannot cannot countermand it, and it certainly does not mandate that you cannot know about it. In fact, it would be pretty hard for a consumer to not know about it since the law requires that you be asked to set the kill switch up when you initially set up the device. You can refuse if you do not wish to have the kill switch.
lostmsu 12y ago
No idea on other stuff, but immobilizer for auto, which is like kill switch for phones, reduced car theft multiple times (3+) since it was introduced.

55 points by bootload 12y ago

I hate to say it but I think there is no way to prevent this. If the human experience shows us anything it is that those with power will use any instrument to exert its will. The internet and computing generally was not born from anarchy and does not exist free from powerful influence from the start. There is no man-made system that is not corrupted by powerful interests.

navait 12y ago

There is no war on general purpose computers. If you want one, you can get one. Some people need one, some people don't. What we are finding is that very few people wanted a general purpose computer in the first place. They wanted to do a thing, and a general purpose computers did that thing(also many other things they didn't want to do or understood). You could buy a dvd player that was region unlocked. You can purchase unlocked phones. You don't have to buy an iphone, or stick to the Google play store but it's nice to know that you could live in the garden if you wanted to. Is the NSA a problem? absolutely. Could requirements like cell-phone termination be used for nefarious means? yes. But we built strong democratic institutions for a reason, and we should be turning to them, not some ideology that helps only the technologically gifted. Mr. Doctrow needs to argue against policy on it's individual merits, not claim it violates some FSF ideology he loves and fearmonger luddites.

hughw 12y ago
He did argue against the policy on its merits, providing several concrete examples where applying the law enables malefactors to do bad things to you. And nothing in the article refers to the FSF or the concept of free or open source software.
- navait 12y ago
  The policies he specifically mentioned: -Region-locked DVD's - never really enforced, and DVD's were irrelevant years ago anyways. -App Store - decision by a private company that many like! Not policy. -Sony Rootkit. Happened in 2005, never happened again. Not a policy. -prohibiting printing gun.stl on your 3-D printer. If you think that's the future in the US, you are flat out retarded. -Self-Driving cars that are self-disabling. Too far in the future to really hammer out a policy framework for yet. Unclear why the government would demand that law enforcement be able to control remotely. -California. The only policy that's actually real and is pretty minor. Only can be used as theft deterrent. Even if he doesn't directly mention free software, it's intellectual inheritance is so clearly from RMS that I don't think it really needs to go without saying.
  - foolrush 12y ago
    The belief that somehow private companies make decisions “just fine” highlights the socio-cultural side. It doesn't take much introspection to cite bleak moments from our collective North American histories that were socially acceptable, while being rather dubious ethically. Smoking was once a “free choice” and desired, and came with it willful years of of ignorance of the influence of second hand smoke. If we dig deeper, we could spend much time discussing slavery and sufferage other such messes that, while abhorrent by today's standards, were perfect cultural fits during their respective reigns. And implicitly bound to private enterprise. Private enterprise doesn't make any of his opinions dissolve, nor less relevant. On the contrary, as those cultural and ideological vantages are precisely why his points are relevant.
    - mc32 12y ago
      I think we can only evaluate things on their present merits. One can't go back in time and indict previous cultures for their norms. So, perhaps one day in the future people will look at us and find it repugnant. That may very well be the case, but that's how it has to be. You evaluate by your current standards not by an undetermined future enlightened state (or who knows, things could all go backwards some day just the same.)
  - emiliobumachar 12y ago
electronvolt 12y ago
I'd actually wonder (and somewhat worry) what effect that has from a social perspective on future generations of programmers. Certainly not all programmers start as kids, but it seems like a huge number of them do, and it seems like almost all of the really, really excellent ones I've met and worked with started programming before the second half of high school (I can think of one notable exception who started in his second year of college). However: many, perhaps most, of them did not start on their own general purpose computer: they all seem to have been exposed to a general purpose computer through their parents and picked it up from there. If many, or most, people do not actually /need/ a general purpose computer (as you argue, and as I kind of agree), then that kind of access would be greatly hampered. I worry about the potential educational effect that would have for people who come into programming the way I and multiple people I know did, without any outside prodding and long before anyone sane starts thinking about their child's future career in some industry. I know that the main advance that computers gave my parents, professionally, over typewriters was the ability to google and the backspace key, followed shortly by .mp3s and the ability to burn CDs (one is a professor of music). If those things were divorced from general purpose computing, I wouldn't have had access to a general purpose computer until easily 5 years after I made my first website, 4 years after I started to learn a Turing complete language, and two years after I started programming in earnest/doing more than snippets of javascript as part of web design (Java, followed shortly after by scheme). I'm not sure I would have actually gone into computer science/programming as a field if I hadn't fallen into it early on: there are a lot of other fields that people were genuinely telling me I should pay attention to or get good at (math, physics, science in general), and I worry that din would have shut out my own interests if I hadn't stumbled into them as early as I did. This is why devices like the iPad worried me from when they were released (when I was in high school) onward: what would I have done if my parents owned an iPad instead of a Mac? If that walled garden was my only exposure to computing at a young age? (I certainly wouldn't have been given the keys to the Apple store to buy educational games about programming, my parents didn't trust me as a child with their money.) I'm not sure I'd be in this field (which I enjoy very much), as there were almost no examples of 'other programmers' in my life until I was in high school, and that was only because I sought them out.
- navait 12y ago

dang 12y ago

Url changed from http://boingboing.net/2014/12/26/war-on-general-purpose-compute.html http://boingboing.net/2014/12/26/war-on-general-purpose-comp..., which points to this. Discussion of related talk from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805039.

bootload 12y ago
thx dang, I usually do this (pt to most authoritative source) - notice how the articles cluster & some have more worth than others.

tzs 12y ago

> if the state of California continues to insist that cell phones have kill switches allowing remote instructions to be executed on your phone that you can't countermand or even know about California cannot "continue" to insist on this, because it never started to insist on it. The California kill switch law does not mandate that you cannot cannot countermand it, and it certainly does not mandate that you cannot know about it. In fact, it would be pretty hard for a consumer to not know about it since the law requires that you be asked to set the kill switch up when you initially set up the device. You can refuse if you do not wish to have the kill switch.

lostmsu 12y ago

No idea on other stuff, but immobilizer for auto, which is like kill switch for phones, reduced car theft multiple times (3+) since it was introduced.