4 ms·

It's an unpopular opinion amongst techies, but I do think people should recognize the genuine nuances to this issue. It probably won't ever happen, but as a "l

It's an unpopular opinion amongst techies, but I do think people should recognize the genuine nuances to this issue. It probably won't ever happen, but as a "live and let live" kind of guy who nevertheless recognizes there are truly evil people out there, and the purpose of government almost above all else is to protect society from them, I think the policy which would make the most sense for this sort of thing would be for a government to simply come up with a sort of digital social contract with its citizens: We couldn't care less if you're buying weed on the internet, or cocaine, or if you're selling them, or emailing your mistress, or pirating HD tentacle hentai. You can do these things in public or private, as you so choose. In the digital realm, we respect your privacy and subscribe to the principle of de minimis. In return, we're going to require that encrypted internet traffic in our country be routed through our servers, with software that flags a limited amount of suspicious, IP-anonymized traffic for human review. If the algorithm turns out out to be wrong in your case and the email was only about the nuclear bomb-grade heroin you snorted off the Pakistani general's long-range missile during your secret gay tryst in Islamabad, we don't care. We'll destroy those records immediately, and there's no way for our human reviewers to see your IP address. We know exactly who reviewed your records and we'll throw the book at any one of them who leaks any private data. And because we have lent our citizens this exceptional freedom to use the internet for any peaceful purpose, that means encrypted traffic that isn't routed through our servers must be treated as suspicious. It may or may not be legitimate, but much of it may well be related to terrorism or violent crime, or child pornography, or financial crime, or foreign agents. So, we will continue our policy as stated above; we won't punish you just for using encryption illegally, but doing so does give us reason for questioning you and requesting access to your private keys.

jhallenworld 11y ago
What incentive do they have to obey such a contract? Anyway, there is oppression by the majority. It is a very good thing that in this age where there is very little privacy, that we are also much more permissive than we once were.
- smitherfield 11y ago
  What incentive would they have not to? Our hypothetical government isn't concerned with victimless and/or trivial crimes. Of course, no government can ever be forced to do anything (that's what makes it the government), but having everything clearly expressed and in the open, and with a tolerant approach to those who are not violent threats to society, is a far better situation than the government conducting surveillance programs in secret with secret scopes, where it may or may not have secret backdoors into commonly-used crypto, and lots of people are left hanging in a legal limbo hoping that the NSA doesn't develop a viable quantum computer before the statute of limitations runs out on their Silk Road drug transactions, etc.
  - zedadex 11y ago
    I agree with the train of thought, but jhallenworld has a point - there's no way to trust the actors sworn-in to uphold such a contract are actually following the contract - nor is there any accountability for such. I believe you're on the right track, but the underlying problem of corruption - at any time, any person trusted to use their position of power as they're "supposed to" instead of skirting their limitations or trying to find ways around them - still exists in the system you described. - What happens when the authority figure decides that actual terrorist threats aren't the only things they should pursue with their unilateral control? - What happens if they take that heroin-snorting secret gay tryst you were in out of context, and blackmail you with it (as happened with the information about intel agencies allegedly knowing about that high level CP ring Britain was involved with)? Once again, I'm happy to see someone besides myself think in terms of how future social contracts should be modified to address the problems our current ones don't; but I think the problem of corruption underlies any potential social contract solution - because at the end of the day, no matter how many rules and limitations you write up, the people who spend their day-to-day living within the contractual system you've created will find (or create) weaknesses to exploit in that system. Anonymous redundancy (multiple people needed to access some data; they don't know who the others are) or internal watchdogs (people who don't have control over the system, but can see how others who do are using their control; watchdogs are also not known so as to limit bribery potential) or something would need to exist as a sort of 'immune system' against the evolution of corruption within the contract.
c22 11y ago
The reason techies find solutions like these unpalatable is because there is no technical way to provide these capabilities without simultaneously weakening protections against attacks from other entities (criminals, other governments, etc). Also, while you, personally, may think it's okay to buy and sell cocaine over the internet, many of the other people signing/writing this social contract would disagree.
- zedadex 11y ago
  > The reason techies find solutions like these unpalatable is because there is no technical way to provide these capabilities without simultaneously weakening protections against attacks from other entities (criminals, other governments, etc). Right, the golden key problem. > Also, while you, personally, may think it's okay to buy and sell cocaine over the internet, many of the other people signing/writing this social contract would disagree. 'Social contracts' rarely refers to specific stances on policies/issues. He was likely using it to refer to the underlying implicit agreement the term usually refers to (the agreement to live by laws, etc) as opposed to any actual document you might be thinking of (like a constitution or something). From that standpoint, I agree with him - there are some issues which will only ever be 'resolved' by reconsidering the underlying stance we take on what our societies can or can't do, and revising the underlying social contract the societies we choose to live in are built upon.
ionised 11y ago
> And because we have lent our citizens this exceptional freedom to use the internet for any peaceful purpose What the hell is this? The citizens haven't been 'lent' anything. It belongs them to begin with.

jhallenworld 11y ago

What incentive do they have to obey such a contract? Anyway, there is oppression by the majority. It is a very good thing that in this age where there is very little privacy, that we are also much more permissive than we once were.

smitherfield 11y ago
What incentive would they have not to? Our hypothetical government isn't concerned with victimless and/or trivial crimes. Of course, no government can ever be forced to do anything (that's what makes it the government), but having everything clearly expressed and in the open, and with a tolerant approach to those who are not violent threats to society, is a far better situation than the government conducting surveillance programs in secret with secret scopes, where it may or may not have secret backdoors into commonly-used crypto, and lots of people are left hanging in a legal limbo hoping that the NSA doesn't develop a viable quantum computer before the statute of limitations runs out on their Silk Road drug transactions, etc.
- zedadex 11y ago
  I agree with the train of thought, but jhallenworld has a point - there's no way to trust the actors sworn-in to uphold such a contract are actually following the contract - nor is there any accountability for such. I believe you're on the right track, but the underlying problem of corruption - at any time, any person trusted to use their position of power as they're "supposed to" instead of skirting their limitations or trying to find ways around them - still exists in the system you described. - What happens when the authority figure decides that actual terrorist threats aren't the only things they should pursue with their unilateral control? - What happens if they take that heroin-snorting secret gay tryst you were in out of context, and blackmail you with it (as happened with the information about intel agencies allegedly knowing about that high level CP ring Britain was involved with)? Once again, I'm happy to see someone besides myself think in terms of how future social contracts should be modified to address the problems our current ones don't; but I think the problem of corruption underlies any potential social contract solution - because at the end of the day, no matter how many rules and limitations you write up, the people who spend their day-to-day living within the contractual system you've created will find (or create) weaknesses to exploit in that system. Anonymous redundancy (multiple people needed to access some data; they don't know who the others are) or internal watchdogs (people who don't have control over the system, but can see how others who do are using their control; watchdogs are also not known so as to limit bribery potential) or something would need to exist as a sort of 'immune system' against the evolution of corruption within the contract.

c22 11y ago

The reason techies find solutions like these unpalatable is because there is no technical way to provide these capabilities without simultaneously weakening protections against attacks from other entities (criminals, other governments, etc). Also, while you, personally, may think it's okay to buy and sell cocaine over the internet, many of the other people signing/writing this social contract would disagree.

zedadex 11y ago
> The reason techies find solutions like these unpalatable is because there is no technical way to provide these capabilities without simultaneously weakening protections against attacks from other entities (criminals, other governments, etc). Right, the golden key problem. > Also, while you, personally, may think it's okay to buy and sell cocaine over the internet, many of the other people signing/writing this social contract would disagree. 'Social contracts' rarely refers to specific stances on policies/issues. He was likely using it to refer to the underlying implicit agreement the term usually refers to (the agreement to live by laws, etc) as opposed to any actual document you might be thinking of (like a constitution or something). From that standpoint, I agree with him - there are some issues which will only ever be 'resolved' by reconsidering the underlying stance we take on what our societies can or can't do, and revising the underlying social contract the societies we choose to live in are built upon.

ionised 11y ago

> And because we have lent our citizens this exceptional freedom to use the internet for any peaceful purpose What the hell is this? The citizens haven't been 'lent' anything. It belongs them to begin with.