10 ms·

Last week MI5 in the UK argued against the 3-strikes filesharing laws as they would encourage private citizens to use cryptography better in their filesharing e

by tshtf 17y ago

Last week MI5 in the UK argued against the 3-strikes filesharing laws as they would encourage private citizens to use cryptography better in their filesharing efforts. If this treaty goes through it very well could be the harbinger of the widespread adoption of darknets, better censorship-resistant networks, and even more creative use of cryptography and networking technologies. Rather than trying to affect legislative change (which is a viable strategy too), some may wish to consider disruptive technologies which will render treaties such as this irrelevant.

dschobel 17y ago
Excellent point. People have become accustomed to an unfettered flow of media and information. They're not just going to throw their hands up and go back to the pre-napster days of walled media gardens.
- lucifer 17y ago
  Excuse my (regrettable) cynicism, but people were accustomed to various other things as well and I don't recall their even bothering to throw up their hands in the post 911 Patriot Act regime when they were taken away.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    The things that were taken away were not things most people think they need. Most people assume they will never be suspected of a crime, and they are usually right, so why bother getting upset about "rights"? The internet is different. It's something people use and rely on every day. If encryption is outlawed, there are no more cell-phone networks, online banking, online shopping, credit card transactions, wifi, etc. Most people are not going to be too happy about that. Censoring the Internet or going after file-sharers is also not going to work. IPv4's "keyspace" of unique addresses is too small; as soon as disconnections become legal, bittorrent clients will start forging the UDP source IPs. (Some ISPs have egress filtering, but does every ISP on the entire planet? If not, then anyone can make it look like you are sharing a file anytime they want.) To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      > To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried. Don't be so sure. It's not like they don't ignore the Constitution when they feel like it.
blintson 17y ago
They'll just make encryption illegal. And record everything everybody does all the time. They never stop. Their objective is to take everything they can. As soon as this is passed they'll look into making even more restrictive laws. It will never stop, the only solution is to play their game and try and keep legislation from being passed, and get existing laws dismissed.
- gloob 17y ago
  A second option is to get out of the first world. It's not so much that developing countries won't pass these laws, but rather that they'll have a somewhat tougher time enforcing them (if they even bother to try).
  - Vivtek 17y ago
    The only problem being that in the Third World, they won't just abrogate your Internet freedom; if they don't like what you say, they'll come and beat you with large blunt objects, or just kill you. America hasn't gone that far, and won't. It's just going to get really stupid for a while, and the folks in Washington are, as somebody once said, supposed to be smarter than me.
    - gloob 17y ago
      I'm aware. I'm thinking more along the lines of Brazil. Not first world, but it's not like we're talking about Somalia either.
      - Vivtek 17y ago
        Point. Actually, Brazil would be a pretty good choice.
      - forensic 17y ago
        Among the wealthy this is a very common line of thinking. Many rich people with foresight who are concerned buy land in South America and develop plans to quickly emigrate. South America is the ideal expat location for those who can afford it.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Vivtek 17y ago
I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree. I depend for my livelihood on my -- aboveboard! -- Internet connection. Yet I also expect to be permitted to express a dissenting political opinion. This type of treaty gives authorities and anyone with a large legal team the instant ability not just to shut me up simply by accusing me of copyright violation - with no burden of proof - but to ruin me financially as well. That is not democracy. Not even close. Political dissent is not just something done by free Tibetans way off in the distance, and it's not the exclusive purview of dedicated activists who have the time to set up darknets. Political dissent is everybody feeling free enough to disagree with the powers that be. This really and truly endangers that, and it's incredibly, incredibly stupid for the American government even to consider it. That the Obama Administration is not only considering it, but actively supporting it by keeping the process secret for as long as humanly possible is profoundly disappointing.
- tshtf 17y ago
  I agree with you almost entirely, but I feel there is no dichotomy here. There is room for several strategies to approach this treaty. There is the need for dissent within in the political sphere for this treaty, and I'm certain that many activists will take this strategy up. There's also room for technological dissent; for citizens to develop strategies and technologies to mitigate the effects if this treaty does go into effect. We're all in the same boat.
  - Vivtek 17y ago
    True enough; it's just that in technical venues one always has the feeling that people still consider the political process to be irrelevant, that the Internet has stopped the business cycle and so on. And it just keeps not being true.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  > That is not democracy. Not even close. Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".
johnaspden 17y ago
And that will mean that we've got good darknets for real criminals to use, whilst people doing nothing wrong cover for them.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
some may wish to consider disruptive technologies which will render treaties such as this irrelevant. It's only irrelevant if you don't mind breaking the law. If you are trying to be a law abiding citizen the ability to avoid being caught is itself irrelevant.

by tshtf 17y ago

dschobel 17y ago

Excellent point. People have become accustomed to an unfettered flow of media and information. They're not just going to throw their hands up and go back to the pre-napster days of walled media gardens.

lucifer 17y ago
Excuse my (regrettable) cynicism, but people were accustomed to various other things as well and I don't recall their even bothering to throw up their hands in the post 911 Patriot Act regime when they were taken away.
- jrockway 17y ago
  The things that were taken away were not things most people think they need. Most people assume they will never be suspected of a crime, and they are usually right, so why bother getting upset about "rights"? The internet is different. It's something people use and rely on every day. If encryption is outlawed, there are no more cell-phone networks, online banking, online shopping, credit card transactions, wifi, etc. Most people are not going to be too happy about that. Censoring the Internet or going after file-sharers is also not going to work. IPv4's "keyspace" of unique addresses is too small; as soon as disconnections become legal, bittorrent clients will start forging the UDP source IPs. (Some ISPs have egress filtering, but does every ISP on the entire planet? If not, then anyone can make it look like you are sharing a file anytime they want.) To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    > To make this treaty take effect in the US as written, the Constitution will have to be rewritten. Politicians are much too lazy for that, so I am not worried. Don't be so sure. It's not like they don't ignore the Constitution when they feel like it.

blintson 17y ago

They'll just make encryption illegal. And record everything everybody does all the time. They never stop. Their objective is to take everything they can. As soon as this is passed they'll look into making even more restrictive laws. It will never stop, the only solution is to play their game and try and keep legislation from being passed, and get existing laws dismissed.

gloob 17y ago
A second option is to get out of the first world. It's not so much that developing countries won't pass these laws, but rather that they'll have a somewhat tougher time enforcing them (if they even bother to try).
- Vivtek 17y ago
  The only problem being that in the Third World, they won't just abrogate your Internet freedom; if they don't like what you say, they'll come and beat you with large blunt objects, or just kill you. America hasn't gone that far, and won't. It's just going to get really stupid for a while, and the folks in Washington are, as somebody once said, supposed to be smarter than me.
  - gloob 17y ago
    I'm aware. I'm thinking more along the lines of Brazil. Not first world, but it's not like we're talking about Somalia either.
    - Vivtek 17y ago
      Point. Actually, Brazil would be a pretty good choice.
    - forensic 17y ago
      Among the wealthy this is a very common line of thinking. Many rich people with foresight who are concerned buy land in South America and develop plans to quickly emigrate. South America is the ideal expat location for those who can afford it.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

Vivtek 17y ago

I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree. I depend for my livelihood on my -- aboveboard! -- Internet connection. Yet I also expect to be permitted to express a dissenting political opinion. This type of treaty gives authorities and anyone with a large legal team the instant ability not just to shut me up simply by accusing me of copyright violation - with no burden of proof - but to ruin me financially as well. That is not democracy. Not even close. Political dissent is not just something done by free Tibetans way off in the distance, and it's not the exclusive purview of dedicated activists who have the time to set up darknets. Political dissent is everybody feeling free enough to disagree with the powers that be. This really and truly endangers that, and it's incredibly, incredibly stupid for the American government even to consider it. That the Obama Administration is not only considering it, but actively supporting it by keeping the process secret for as long as humanly possible is profoundly disappointing.

tshtf 17y ago
I agree with you almost entirely, but I feel there is no dichotomy here. There is room for several strategies to approach this treaty. There is the need for dissent within in the political sphere for this treaty, and I'm certain that many activists will take this strategy up. There's also room for technological dissent; for citizens to develop strategies and technologies to mitigate the effects if this treaty does go into effect. We're all in the same boat.
- Vivtek 17y ago
  True enough; it's just that in technical venues one always has the feeling that people still consider the political process to be irrelevant, that the Internet has stopped the business cycle and so on. And it just keeps not being true.
johnnybgoode 17y ago
> That is not democracy. Not even close. Why is that not democracy? What does democracy have to do with it? I often see the word "democracy" used as if it means "freedom".

johnaspden 17y ago

And that will mean that we've got good darknets for real criminals to use, whilst people doing nothing wrong cover for them.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

some may wish to consider disruptive technologies which will render treaties such as this irrelevant. It's only irrelevant if you don't mind breaking the law. If you are trying to be a law abiding citizen the ability to avoid being caught is itself irrelevant.