[mfincham]

"We will just use technology to bypass this bad law" is a very convenient position for a technology-focused group to take. It feels weirdly privileged to just say "ah we will abdicate ourselves from the problem by using ever more complicated technology" rather than working to improve the legislation to benefit everyone.

[etherael]

If you were taken hostage and had access to a teleportation device that would extricate you from the situation, but was extremely difficult to use such that the vast majority of people would be unable to do so, would you be ethically obligated to risk your life making it more easy to use so more people could get out, or negotiate with the hostage takers, rather than just making use of the escape avenue you have clearly available to you?

Why is obeying idiotic unenforceable laws any different to this when it comes to technology, aside from the obvious of the stakes being much lower? Although the way the world is going, that may not be a given in the future.

I'd argue it may even be worse when it comes to cases of governments who are nominally democracies making idiotic laws for their populaces, because at least theoretically, those populaces could have voted in such a way that said idiotic laws would never come to be, and thus their misery, the stupid laws that they're subject to, etc, are somewhat self inflicted, and for those that do dissent it makes even more sense to feel zero obligation to the greater populace given that. I personally don't really buy this because in my experience, what people want in a democracy has very little with what they end up getting, and the same people that will scream blue murder about the right to self rule when it comes to a national group, will scream just as loud when it comes to an individual in the exact opposite direction.

[maskil]

Sometimes technology is the way out. Sometimes the only way to fix the system is to create an alternative that circumvents it. Tools matter.

[raxxorraxor]

Improving legislation is a dead end strategy. Look at politics in the last 2 decades after 9/11. We have increased surveillance in every part of life. Sure, the largest amount of users doesn't understand or mind surveillance because the dangers are abstract right now. They will understand later when the owners of information use it against them. You could never achieve a success that way. We increase security without there being a problem, it is an intrinsic characteristic of old and aging democracies it seems.

No, the only strategy is to create realities just like the internet did with its inception, just like encryption was established. We would never have it if we tried to legislate it into reality.

Additionally legislation is completely ignored by state actors that put the population under surveillance. The battle for legislation was lost.

[sircastor]

I don't think this sounds weirdly privileged at all. The trouble is people will solve problems typically through the path of least resistance. It's much easier to find legal loopholes than it is to try and comply. And contrary to the rhetoric, it's expensive and uncertain to simply buy law-making through lobbying.

Consider how hard it is in the United States to lay new fiber (and this is an imperfect metaphor). The ideal solution would be to get legislative branches to solve the telcos oligopoly problem. That has not and is not working. So what's happening? Wireless internet over LTE, and 5G being deployed everywhere. Route around.

[astrange]

Deploying 5G doesn't involve laying new fiber?

[AinderS]

> working to improve the legislation

You mean like what the Pirate Parties, FSF, EFF, Mozilla, and countless others are trying to and failing? I never thought I'd see "well we have no political power to change things, but as disastrous as these laws are, for us specifically, maybe we can evade them for a little while longer if we're clever" described as "privileged".