|
|
|
|
|
|
by dagss
453 days ago
|
|
|
Well also in the real world, if you look at history, people DID exploit the neighbouring tribe with impunity if they could not defend themselves ("what idiots don't have a guard during night"), or built stone fortresses with 3 metre stone walls. When living under those conditions, people probably did put the responsibility to be safe on the victim.. We have been able to remove this waste due to the introduction of the national state, laws, "monopoly on violence", police... It is THOSE things that allows the factory in your analogy to not spend resources on a 3 metre stone wall and armed guards 24/7. Now on the internet the police, at least relatively to the physical world, almost completely lack the ability to either investigate or enforce anything. They may use what tools they can, but it does not give them much in the digital world compared to the physical. If we want internet to be like the real world in this respect, we would have to develop ways to let the police see a lot more and enforce a lot more. Like they can in the physical world. |
|
|
I agree and it's exactly this that's often so violently opposed by the technical community who are routinely frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that law enforcement needs access to be able to function while that community, and often especially that community with their fancy, expensive lives, enjoys widespread, comfortable physical and legal protection afforded by that very same law enforcement which is only made possible by this agency having far-reaching legal and lethal powers.
It can be abused and it will be abused, but I guess it comes down to do we want comfortable lives or do we want to be free?
IMO it's a matter of time before some nation-state level actor will unleash a digital shit-storm of astronomic proportions which will necessitate swift political decisions and it's my guess we better have an open, realistic discussion about it now instead of then.