OBVIOUSLY CHAOTIC NEUTRAL
The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
31–40 of 96 posts
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective. That is only true if there are no universal preferences: things like self ownership, all things being equal, is always preferable to slavery.
Sure, but whether or not there are universal preferences is also subjective.
> are
I don't think that existence is subjective, so universal preference either exists or it doesn't. It has been a long time since I've sat in a philosophy class though, so I'd welcome a correction.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective. Part of the argument is in convincing your opponent that your morality is superior to theirs. Or, perhaps, that their stance violates their own sense of morality. Why? I can't just live morally and let my "opponent" do what they think is right? I feel very strongly that people should decide what they think is right and fight for it. I feel no need to convince other people tha…
> I feel very strongly that people should decide what they think is right and fight for it. > I feel no need to convince other people that my morality is superior to theirs. Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Fighting for your morality is convincing others of its superiority. Those two things are the same thing.
They're not entirely the same thing. For example, if you think people have a right to privacy, one way to fight for it is to write cryptographic software, so everybody who already agrees with you can protect themselves. That doesn't require you to convince anyone who disagrees.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you implying that "law enforcement officials" have moral standing, especially in the US? Torture, racism, fraud, corruption, brutality, are what springs to mind, along with a total lack of will to reform. To hell with that.
Torture, racism, fraud, corruption: yes. Total lack of will to reform: no.
OK, take "Total" out and see if you're still happy with that answer:
http://henrycountyreport.com/blog/2015/12/01/leaked-document...
It seems to me there's a tremendous lack of will to reform abuses and criminal acts by LEO. Perhaps not "Total", but so marginally less than "Total" as to be functionally equivalent (in that "not all men" kind of failure to acknowledge reality...).
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel very strongly that people should decide what they think is right and fight for it. > I feel no need to convince other people that my morality is superior to theirs. Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Fighting for your morality is convincing others of its superiority. Those two things are the same thing.
They're not entirely the same thing. For example, if you think people have a right to privacy, one way to fight for it is to write cryptographic software, so everybody who already agrees with you can protect themselves. That doesn't require you to convince anyone who disagrees.
If you fight to win (in at least as much as keeping your freedom to encrypt), you will have to convince your government at some point. The topic won't go away and if they care strongly enough you might find yourself in your own private full-on intelligence war, and maybe in prison. At some point tech cannot help you (rubber-hose cryptography).
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you implying that "law enforcement officials" have moral standing, especially in the US? Torture, racism, fraud, corruption, brutality, are what springs to mind, along with a total lack of will to reform. To hell with that.
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective. So no, that implication really isn't there. The lack of will to reform is not total amongst LEOs. The lack of political will to do many seemingly sensible things in this country is a moral failure that every citizen shares.
Would you agree that well over 99% of LEOs either actively or passively ignore abuses by their colleagues? As evidenced by things like this: http://henrycountyreport.com/blog/2015/12/01/leaked-document...
I suspect that you're right that it is a minority of LEOs that actually abuse their power (possibly a 49% minority, but possibly even as low as 10% or even 1%), but it's clear that there are many more - an overwhelming majority, who actively defend or passively ignore those who do. (I'm sure I only ever see the bad ones, but just about every statement by the Fraternal Order of Police makes me seethe with rage...)
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#37They lead one to ask if our inability to effectively address mass surveillance constitutes a failure of our field. I believe that it does. I call for a community-wide effort to develop more effective means to resist mass surveillance. What's funny is that you could talk to any number of law enforcement officials who believe that the moral failing is on the cryptography community for not providing a "backdoor" into en…
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective.
Genuine question: What do people who believe this use as their reason for refraining from harming others for personal gain? I understand that simple intuitive preferences against seeing others suffer will often work, but what do you do about instances where either the rewards of screwing someone over are very great or where your intuition tells you that you would get a lot of pleasure from seeing someone in pain?
I know that I don't really have anything to support my belief that there exists an objective morality which is hard-to-determine.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#38They lead one to ask if our inability to effectively address mass surveillance constitutes a failure of our field. I believe that it does. I call for a community-wide effort to develop more effective means to resist mass surveillance. What's funny is that you could talk to any number of law enforcement officials who believe that the moral failing is on the cryptography community for not providing a "backdoor" into en…
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective. Genuine question: What do people who believe this use as their reason for refraining from harming others for personal gain? I understand that simple intuitive preferences against seeing others suffer will often work, but what do you do about instances where either the rewards of screwing someone over are very great or where your intuition tells you that you would get a lot of…
Beauty is subjective, but that doesn't stop people in society from coalescing around norms.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universality doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality. If I want to kill all other people and I successfully kill everyone but myself, my preference has become universal but fulfilling that preference has not become any more moral. Personally, I don't think morality is all that subjective, but more an emergent property of community identity. (Thus is inherently shared rather than inherently personal). I…
As a foundation for morality it does, violation of a universal principle being an immoral act. Your hypothetical situation depends on the dimension of time, I'd say that universality has no such constraint: the concept of a perfect circle exists regardless of a physical example ever having existed.
> Your hypothetical situation depends on the dimension of time
So do you include the future and the past? If you include the future it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine the universality of a principle. If you don't include the future, that means that it is possible for the universality of a principle to change. Then As soon as one person is born who doesn't share a principle, the moral character of that principle vanishes?
I'm not what point you are trying to make by bringing in the concept of the perfect circle. I don't see at all how this relates to morality. The concept of a perfect circle is not universally shared currently, and certainly isn't historically shared universally. Even if that concept were universal, it would not make imperfect circles immoral.
Re: The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
#40They lead one to ask if our inability to effectively address mass surveillance constitutes a failure of our field. I believe that it does. I call for a community-wide effort to develop more effective means to resist mass surveillance. What's funny is that you could talk to any number of law enforcement officials who believe that the moral failing is on the cryptography community for not providing a "backdoor" into en…
> Morality is, unfortunately, subjective. Genuine question: What do people who believe this use as their reason for refraining from harming others for personal gain? I understand that simple intuitive preferences against seeing others suffer will often work, but what do you do about instances where either the rewards of screwing someone over are very great or where your intuition tells you that you would get a lot of…
Recognizing that other people have different opinions than you doesn't stop you from preferring or advocating your own. Objective morality is nice to the extent that you can have an intellectual discussion and come to a resolution. More often you just fight it out.