[qwerty456127]

> Technolgoists need to remember that tech is nothing without law.

It works both ways. A law can be almost nothing without technical means to enforce it efficiently. There can be cases that make a law [almost] futile so the governments give it up. E.g. many governments tried to ban alcohol but it's so easy (yet dangerous as it can blow up and set the house on fire, especially if the cook is drunk and/or the hardware is amateur) to produce at home that fighting it seriously just doesn't seem to make any sense. Some governments have tried to ban the phalaris grass as it may contain tiny amounts of ​dimethyltryptamines but it just grows all over everywhere so they have given up the ban as it was almost as ridiculous as it would be to ban sand, flies or whatever this common. The problem is to invent a medium for exchanging messages that is easy to establish independently (no need for uncommon devices, no special requirements to the underlying ISP) yet very hard to detect, compromise or disrupt. This sounds like a serious challenge yet not like an entirely impossible thing provided breakthroughs in mathematics/cryptography, physics and the telecom tech still happen from time to time. Some political/economical factors may also play on our side occasionally. My hope is for the whole Internet to morph into a fully-decentralized distributed network employing DIY P2P links as its organic and vital part. Perhaps this may happen once if something is going to make classic ISPs unprofitable and stimulate growth of MESH networks with something like i2P serving as a layer connecting them in one secure and reliable global network.

[dogma1138]

The technical means to enforce a law are a bunch of guys with sharp sticks.

[adrianN]

But programmers building the tools for perfect surveillance are the ones enabling them to know who to stick.

[qwerty456127]

They can hardly run around sticking everyone for having what everybody can have easily and what is not easily visible unless too many people start collaborating and reporting each other.

[dogma1138]

Take a look at no other than Turkey.

[Erlich_Bachman]

Everyone knows that. And yet the example with alcohol still works, so it's kind of a moot point.

[dogma1138]

Enforcement will never be completely universal and the more "free" the society is in general the harder it would be to enforce it via draconian means.

So the dry laws in the US and in other western (primarily Nordic) countries isn't that great of an example as these were still mainly liberal democracies despite the restrictions.

The similar laws in more authoritarian regimes would work quite differently.

And unfortunately we have too many modern examples of how effective governments can be at suppressing various behaviors and or ideas.