151–160 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how's thats working out so far?
Actually it was going reasonably well for 2 or 3 centuries, the mass spying is a recent development. Thus the correct question to ask is "why/how did we break the system that used to work"
This all boils down to the question of how to reign in the administrative state, and the problem here is that no one really wants to reign it in, they want to control it and point it in the direction they prefer, that is, they want an extra-judicial, extra-legislative source of power to exist, but just not do any of the things they don't like. But I don't think this is possible, once you have an administrative state,…
Private institutions are even less accountable. I don’t see an alternative for advanced civilization right now.
The robots in Asimov's story are basically uncorruptable. The closest modern example I can think of is encryption + bitcoin. But governments while they can't break encryption can go after exchanges and enact harsh legal penalties thereby extending traditional power structures.
Would a neuralink+pocket AI get you out of any situation, even a government coming after you? Would personal faster-than-light ships allow everyone to escape to their own worlds?
The fact that these examples are so fanciful shows how entrenched power is I'd say. But maybe some single advancement will provide a new modality, or a continual buildup of decentralized tech like torrents, crypto, blockchain, encryption, and cheap computing power.
And as far as cultural changes, maybe that was one purpose of ancient gods. To posit a supernatural power that can destroy any man-made power. But religion also seems to entrench worldly power on the flip-side.
(sorry for the semi off-topic)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There's no reason why this should not hold for spying and policing agencies Isn't that what democracies call "constitution"? Something that protects citizens' rights again wrong-doing of powerful entities including legislators and the state itself?
And how's thats working out so far?
Most sovereign States can’t spy on their own population. The NSA gets around this by spying on Germany from Denmark and on Denmark from Germany. It’s all about plausible deniability. No matter how implausible it is. The current spin from other countries being outraged begs the question: how are you collaborating with the NSA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No new systems need to be developed, only a will to deploy existing systems. To the best of public knowledge, Curve25519 with AES-GCM or ChaCha20-Poly1305 is good enough to keep the NSA out for years. These are available in TLS, OpenVPN, and WireGuard. Longer term, TLS, OpenVPN, and WireGuard all need to standardize post-quantum key exchange (such as Chrome's TLS experiment to run Curve25519 and RLWE key agreement pr…
The math behind encryption cannot be broken. But the implementations can. When you have so many math PhDs attacking crypto implementations, you are bound to find a bug you can exploit. Look how long heartbleed was around.
It is one thing that intelligence services is monitoring specific actions that are important to national security. However, along the way, Lockheed Martin and friends and the jobs provided by them became national security. These two things are important to keep separate to understand the debate that is going on here. So this is Danish intelligence services helping Boeing securing contracts against Airbus and Saab. Th…
Part of the context here is that Denmark like so many small European companies allowed the American military industrial complex to infiltrate it's military and security services to the point where it cannot actually operate independently an hence have to say yes when this kind of request comes in they cannot really refuse. And this is by design as the US military "tech transfer" projects like the JSF/F-35 is explicit…
This is short term thinking. It only helps those who wants to weaken the links between EU and the US.
This all boils down to the question of how to reign in the administrative state, and the problem here is that no one really wants to reign it in, they want to control it and point it in the direction they prefer, that is, they want an extra-judicial, extra-legislative source of power to exist, but just not do any of the things they don't like. But I don't think this is possible, once you have an administrative state,…
Um... no. Why "of course".
EU leaders are weak, they'll continue act like blind slaves Makes me laugh everytime i think about how facebook stole europe's idea (libra), thanks weak leaders
What was it that Zuckerberg allegedly said? "If Europe had invented Facebook, they would have invented Facebook".
you swallow what ever USA says, and you deny what ever bad thing they do to you
they get the lead, you bow, worse, you endorse them, without questioning how the fuck they keep getting the lead
you BDSM lover, except they don't like you, but you don't care, since you are a blind slave
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Missing a few steps between "having an administrative state" and "spy on everyone" there, buddy.
One of the steps was included, the comment notes: > ...the problem here is that no one really wants to reign it in... Why shouldn't it spy on people? If the state is fundamentally on our side, that is a win (fuzzy abstract principles like privacy vs. concrete benefits like stopping specific illegal activity). Ditto if the state is neutral. We have no need to keep secrets from a neutral but fundamentally principled en…
We must ask, when agreeing to give government a new power, how to protect ourselves against their inevitable abuse of that power. The "national security" excuse circumvents that process.