Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

michaelgeist.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 181 posts

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#111

Post by jolmg »

Cyph0n wrote: post #105
inigyou wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful. Some actors are deliberately muddying the waters of good and bad. For example, vaccines are pretty good, but some groups want you to be unsure if they're good or bad.

Precisely. Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. “Unions can be corrupt” or “You don’t need unions to get your voice heard” is the kind of rhetoric that leads to disinterest in unions over the years.

It can go both ways. Bad actors can simplify because it leads to indifference, by way of generalizations. "black" = "bad", "illegal immigrant" = "gang member". It's how racism works.

> The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy.

Empathy, yes. Simplicity doesn't normally lead to empathy; complexity does.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#112

Post by AnthonyMouse »

derefr wrote: post #107
Waterluvian wrote: post #5

It feels like there’s this weird layer to domestic and international politics where you do a lot of signalling to one audience while simultaneously winking at other audiences that you’re not actually serious. (I can never tell who is getting winked at…) I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. The Ned Stark character that is righteous and right and quickly meets the he…

I could imagine true WYSIWYG politics, but it would need a very different temporal organizational structure than current politics. Currwntly, politicians each have a series of meetings over time with different parties (constituents, lobbyists, domain experts, coalition members) and then at some point one of them drafts and tables a law (that's probably already been informally planned for ages among those in the know)…

Only one of the things that makes what you're describing unworkable is that "concerned parties" include arbitrary members of the public. Anyone who can't afford to spend a year sequestered in a room can't so much as write a letter to their representative?

Another is that they would just agree on what to do before the official start of the process. Or learn to speak in code. Or pass notes to each other off camera etc.

The closest approximation that might actually do something would be to require the final version of any piece of legislation to be published a year before the final vote. Then the product of a backroom deal can't be enacted before anyone else has a chance to mount an opposition.

Another would be to make it easier to repeal things than to pass them. A lot of current corruption relies on the misfeature that we apply the same purposely-arduous process intended to inhibit bad things from passing as the requirement to un-pass existing bad things, so then if they can corrupt the entire process once they only have to maintain control of a single branch to prevent it from being rolled back.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#113

Post by cindyllm »

deaux wrote: post #96
a34729t wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way we dont want smart people on juries, smart people in government is haram. especially people with technical educations who care about privacy. very haram!

You forgot the police with its explicit maximum IQ limits.

[dead]

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#114

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jolmg wrote: post #90
Iolaum wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree this is the case, I think this is a consequence of low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse. If the quality of those two goes up, then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I only wish I knew of possible ways for us to get there :(

>> I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. > then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I think the problem that Waterluvian's is getting at is precisely that WYSIWYG politics is taken as the preferred choice without understanding the implications that make it not actually work. For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-t…

I think you're talking past each other:

> For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves.

Passing a censorship/surveillance bill using the pretext of protecting children is the opposite of WYSIWYG. The true motive is building an apparatus to use to enforce other authoritarian policies and protecting children is the Trojan horse.

If people were better informed about second order effects then that wouldn't work because they would see through the consequences when a pretext is being presented for a bad idea, and then the politicians who attempt it would be more often punished than rewarded. The tactic of lying to people would happen less often because it would be selected against when the number of people who see through you is enough to boot you out of office.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#115

Post by irishcoffee »

inigyou wrote: post #101
irishcoffee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectively, the left has this very strong ideology of “education will fix everything, and until then we know what’s best for the masses” This went too far with the whole woke thing, and resulted in 2 non-consecutive terms of trump, handing the right a litany of power they had no idea how to wield, and they hit every stupid branch falling down the failure tree. Education isn’t the answer, dictating “I know what’s bes…

What is "the whole woke thing"?

[flagged]

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#116

Post by AnthonyMouse »

voakbasda wrote: post #87
Avicebron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, both low education for the general public and low quality of the public discourse exist by design. Absolutely. Bread and circuses isn't a new idea. >The only possible way to remedy this is to maximize your own ability to exert power, possibly by becoming massively rich, and then hope it doesn't corrupt you enough along the way such that you can still enact good in the end. Points for the doing good i…

If you have a binary view, Good will always lose. Evil can act Good, but Good cannot act Evil. Evil has that advantage over Good that cannot be matched. This continuously plays out in our political systems. Good actors cannot fight the deluge of evil of their opponents, who are free to lie cheat and steal. Good binds its own hands. For good to win, it must act with even greater evil. At which point, it becomes the ve…

> Evil can act Good, but Good cannot act Evil. Evil has that advantage over Good that cannot be matched.

The assumption here is that being Evil is advantageous. It's obviously advantageous to personal gain, but the relevant thing is whether it's advantageous to staying in power, and then the system you want to design is the one where it isn't.

Notice also that it isn't binary. You can make it harder to be Evil and then have less of it even if you never have none.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#117

Post by watwut »

inigyou wrote: post #102
watwut wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The millionaires libertarians consistently support republican party. They are the ones ahifting it to the right and towards fascism.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You can't just call everyone you disagree with a fascist.

I dont call "just anyone" I disagree with that. I call it a specific libertarian millionaires and republican party as is now. Because they fit the definition. And have fascist goals.

I disagree with many other people who dont happen to be like that.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#118

Post by inigyou »

irishcoffee wrote: post #115
inigyou wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "the whole woke thing"?

[flagged]

No, I really don't know what you mean by "the whole woke thing". Since it's load-bearing in your argument, could you explain it?

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#119

Post by inigyou »

Cyph0n wrote: post #105
inigyou wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful. Some actors are deliberately muddying the waters of good and bad. For example, vaccines are pretty good, but some groups want you to be unsure if they're good or bad.

Precisely. Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. “Unions can be corrupt” or “You don’t need unions to get your voice heard” is the kind of rhetoric that leads to disinterest in unions over the years.

I think "unions are always good" is worse than "unions can be corrupt or good, here's how to push for good"

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#120

Post by inigyou »

jolmg wrote: post #111
Cyph0n wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. “Unions can be corrupt” or “You don’t need unions to get your voice heard” is the kind of rhetoric that leads to disinterest in unions over the years.

It can go both ways. Bad actors can simplify because it leads to indifference, by way of generalizations. "black" = "bad", "illegal immigrant" = "gang member". It's how racism works. > The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. Empathy, yes. Simplicity doesn't normally lead to empathy; complexity does.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN