> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:16:41AM -0800, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> > If we all find a way to solve the anti-terrorism problem, or at least
> > carve out space for it to be solved, we'd be less at odds for protecting
> > privacy etc. There are some promising ideas I think, but all solutions
> > so far involve painful and often unacceptable tradeoffs.
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 08:58:15PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> A rather obvious -- but nearly entirely overlooked -- approach is
> to refuse to be terrorized.
Pretty much agree, but so far only Israel is famous for
following that path. Sigh.
In the law proposal for a secure Internet that some folks
and me worked out, we see some potential in addressing the
issue in a more systemic way:
- In order to also avoid the problem of fake news having
a business model and the possibility of micro-invasive
influencing of electorate through bulk surveillance and
big data analysis plus targeted IMHO anti-constitutional
manipulation...
... we propose that all social interactions on the Internet
be end-to-end encrypted and anonymized by law.
The technologies aren't entirely capable of that yet, but
a strong legislational interest creates the incentive for
industry to participate in a new fair market rather than
being cut out of it, so that is not the primary problem.
Yes, this would imply that the way Facebook & co function
is no longer legal. Social networking has to become a
basic function of the Internet, like TCP/IP today. I
would love to find a way for corporations to run the
platforms of our constitutional liberties, but I see no
way this can ever avoid conflict with the constitutions
of our democracies. Social interaction cannot be a product
that is being sold to us in exchange for surveillance.
As a side effect, such a legislation also impedes SPAM,
phishing and other kinds of "cybercrime". It also implies
de-facto net neutrality and a few other nice things.
- In order to enable law enforcement, methods are provided
for LEA's to observe specific targets rather than the
entire population - as in accordance with the constitution.
That is *not* done by key escrow or any other method that
de-facto depends on the good will of the LEA's as depending
on any such good will is anti-constitutional by definition.
We propose physical and cryptographic consensus style of
approaches for ensuring that the number of observation
operations stays within constitutional boundaries.
Explaining that means copy & pasting the proposal itself.
Please, when making Internet advocacy, keep this option
in the back of your head: One way to deal with it all can
be to actually fix it. More on youbroketheinternet.org.
--
E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
--
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of
list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe,
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
compa...@stanford.edu.
