5 ms·

Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discuss

Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discussions on how to allow the government to still be able to fight certain forms of illegal data exchange (terrorism and child abuse) while banning it from being at all involved in the others (drugs). But there is no middle ground solution. Any network that comprises itself enough to allow the government in to monitor and combat certain data will weaken its ability to prevent the government from being able to do the same elsewhere. As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. And with a history filled with governments always overstepping their bounds, the only real solution is to create something that cannot be read, as any limit that depends upon 'please don't' is only a temporary patch.

slg 12y ago
>As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child abuse or terrorism, but aren't allowed to do the same for a traffic violation. Why would that system need to be different online? We just need to make the process of acquiring and executing a warrant more transparent. That political debate would take precedence over any technical problem like designing a distributed system that could accommodate this type of request.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  >It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored. Also, there are few other considerations: No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others. Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent. Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.
jshap70 12y ago
>Middle ground does not always exist I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that. I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.
- maqr 12y ago
  > >Middle ground does not always exist He doesn't mean ideologically, he means technically. You're either encrypted or you're not. This isn't about being opinionated, it truly is about whether or not we allow the government to monitor all the things. The only options are all or none, there is no "just monitor some of the things" option.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    The concern is that the technical binary nature of the issue does put pressure on the political sides towards being binary. For example, those who want a system that protects jounalist in oppressive countries but that does not protect child predators have lots of positions to pick, but those positions (and the groups that hold them) can easily be divided along the lines of those who support a system that protects both and those that support a system that protects neither (it technically protects neither while it will often be sold as protecting one but not the other, and as such the majority of the group may fully believe it does protect one but not the other).

slg 12y ago

>As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child abuse or terrorism, but aren't allowed to do the same for a traffic violation. Why would that system need to be different online? We just need to make the process of acquiring and executing a warrant more transparent. That political debate would take precedence over any technical problem like designing a distributed system that could accommodate this type of request.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored. Also, there are few other considerations: No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others. Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent. Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.

jshap70 12y ago

>Middle ground does not always exist I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that. I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.

maqr 12y ago
> >Middle ground does not always exist He doesn't mean ideologically, he means technically. You're either encrypted or you're not. This isn't about being opinionated, it truly is about whether or not we allow the government to monitor all the things. The only options are all or none, there is no "just monitor some of the things" option.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  The concern is that the technical binary nature of the issue does put pressure on the political sides towards being binary. For example, those who want a system that protects jounalist in oppressive countries but that does not protect child predators have lots of positions to pick, but those positions (and the groups that hold them) can easily be divided along the lines of those who support a system that protects both and those that support a system that protects neither (it technically protects neither while it will often be sold as protecting one but not the other, and as such the majority of the group may fully believe it does protect one but not the other).