So how do we get out of this mess?
And so now, we're all thinking: "Ok, let's just have them promise us or 'commit' to the dismantling of this huge surveillance apparatus. And we're good."
But then we understand that we will never ever again be able to trust them (neither the government nor the tech giants). Why?
1. They all have no problem continuously lying straight to our faces, this is now proven. 2. The blueprints for such surveillance systems are now there, the tech is now there, the know-how is now there, and even experience is now there. How can you get rid of all this so there won't be any more abuse? You just can't.
So what's the solution to prevent our "representatives" from destroying democracy?
I don't know if there IS one, but I'm asking myself these days if all this not "simply" tells us that a central government in this form is logically just not responsible anymore. That it will allways become corrupted, sooner or later.
I remember one political analyst suggesting quite some time ago that the US will subdivide itself into several smaller zones. What do you think?
22 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 48.0 ms ] threadBecause decription is only a matter of the amount of resources you through behind, and:
1) Those resources become cheaper by the day
2) Technology, by definition, improves with exponential progression
3) A big central government has all the money it takes (from us, obviously)
So, when you encrypt with today's algos, and it gets stored by the NSA, it will become cheaper for them to decrypt it with every month that passes, because they will be able to decrypt today's encryption with tomorrow's technology and financial means.
So in my eyes, that means we're pretty much f*cked without fundamental change.
I know this is beside the point though. What I mean to say, is what can be done other than encryption and using tor-like networks for anonymity?
Nobody can be sure that they are/n't being watched, period. Heck, if it wasn't for Edward Snowden we'd still be none the wiser.
Whose to say there aren't dozens of other programs in place that aren't in the public eye?
It's not like you can even opt-out of holding accounts with large tech companies targeted by PRISM since it's easy for them to just tap your network traffic through ISPs.
As long as there is a government, nobody can be sure whether we are or aren't being watched. What 'fundamental change' could be made that would stop this?
Instead of that 1 point-of-failure-and-corruption that we have today.
That way, "government" really belongs to those who it is supposed to serve: the People.
PS: "Decentralization" is the word I was looking for. Just like the Internet is supposed to be used, in order to remain sane.
Not to minimize the magnitude of the acheivement here, but I do think the NSA exerts considerable effort to avoid being seen doing most of the things -- including the most astonishing things -- they do. Its a pretty key part of their mission.
Secondly, because the number of people and the data they have to store also increase exponentially. Maybe they can decrypt someone's data but they cannot decrypt everyone's data. So if we all use encryption, they are pretty much lost because they won't know what to decrypt.
So I would say that encryption is pretty safe, but very impractical.
edit: To kimlelly, ok if AI is "short term" then I cannot disagree :) But, then is there a solution at all?
We use technology to produce better technology.
That's the cycle that will go on as long as we exist.
It's by definition of exponential acceleration. In a few years, we will be creating technology based on real artificial intelligence.
However, this decentralization has to be done not only for government but also for economy, because concentration of power by any means – be it money or military will ultimately force concentration of other powers.
"My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest shall have the same opportunities as the strongest… No country in the world today shows any but patronizing regard for the weak… Western democracy, as it functions today, is diluted fascism… True democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the center. It has to be worked from below, by the people of every village." - MK. Gandhi
You have the technology, and you have the freedom to use it, then use it! In some countries, we don't have the freedom to establish long distance (or even cross the road) communications without going the a government approved telco or ISP...
Systems of governance will always fail. This is just the way things are.
The very best one can do is what was done in Philadelphia in 1787: design a flexible system of checks and balances.
It will not last forever. It will last for a good while. Such a system may allow for a peaceful revolution into whatever sucessor form of governance happens.
I suggest one valid successor to American representative democracy is anarcho-capitalism.
Consider: if government is going to fail us in novel and horrid ways perhaps the solution is to remove the concept of government.
The only entity in our current system powerful enough to, say, prevent corporations from overfishing any fishery to destruction is the government. Similarly, government issued and enforced carbon credits are the only thing preventing (or attempting to prevent) even more drastic pollution. The list goes on.
The main reason we need government right now is to put a check on corporate power (although sometimes it doesn't seem that way, I admit). And the main reason we need a check on corporate power is because of the profit motive and the concentration of wealth towards the upper ranks of any corporation.
Instead of anarcho-capitalism, how about anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialism? In a socialist society, the capital (ie the means of production) is owned by the workers rather than the rich boss sitting in his office.
Even more so, in a capitalist society, you need some entity in place to protect your capital (land, factories, slaves, etc) from being used by someone else, even if you're not using them (and even if you 'own' so much that you're limiting others' very ability to survive). There are 2 ways to do this: 1) Look to legislation enforcing capital ownership and a state-run police force. And 2) establish a police force / military of your own, under your own control.
The first is what we have now, and the second would quickly collapse into a military ictatorship or oligarchy.
The way I see it (from the above reasoning), there's plenty of reason to think that "anarcho-capitalism" is an inherently contradictory statement.
tl;dr: I agree with the anarcho- half of your suggestion, but not capitalism.
Study systems, including how they segregate and specialize. Realize this generalizes across all sorts of different environments, from biology to information to technology.
Compartmentalize.
P.S.
I mean this from the individual's perspective, per the original question.
After posting, I realize these terms can also and do also apply to the "other side". Pick up any espionage thriller novel, and you're likely to quickly encounter them.
So... They are universal. They work for both sides.
As an individual interested in having an accountable government, I'd argue for their limitation for "that side". Transparency, audit trails, accountability.
That however does not obviate the need to cope with the status quo.