The point of this point is “Either everyone spies or nobody does”
The folks who are the “Everyone spies” team ought not be supporting “Nobody does” technologies like MaidSAFE.
It shocks me to see everyone piling onto the “no secrets for anybody” side, because it is against everything that encryption technologies like MaidSAFE are about.
Spying has a negative connotation and denotation. This is about reporting crime. Transparent systems don’t allow room for crime to even get off the ground and they improved culture and law successively. It perfects the power of the people from the bottom up which is all the difference in the world.
What we are working on is ending rule by money- “I have more money than you therefore I get to tell you what to do.”
I keep coming back in my mind to the politics of the crucifixion of Christ or Christ as an activist. Under Jewish, law interest was a crime. No Jew would lend money at interest. Maybe there was a realization that debt could be constructive but to keep it from reverting to its natural destructive form (money trap) or rule by wealth there was a law or custom of the Jubilee Day where the rich would forgive the poor their debts every 12 years. But it have been 40 years with no relief and we hence see Christ flipping the money changer (banker’s tables) and incurring the wrath of the bankers. They use a higher ranking Roman as their administrator and crucify and martyr him. He was just asking that they follow their own laws and not enslave through money. Of course, it’s not like it was it wasn’t a monarchy or at least the plight of captive Jewish people.
It had all the elements we expect, them bullying in groups and them trying to spy (even if it turns out Judas didn’t actually betray.) It was always the same crap, they (Sanhedrin) gathered together behind closed doors to plot and construe and plan malevolence that they couldn’t have gotten away with in broad daylight out in the open. They they try to bully by bringing him alone before them in numbers, seated up in an elevated forum presenting themselves as a corrupt consensus. He spoke truth to power.
He gave the middle finger to arbitrary rule by money. Predictable result. If he, Christ, had had SAFE/Slur it would have been the Sanhedrin on the Crucifixes or at least facing the possibility of it and needing pardon!
They will have some measure of confidentiality but it won’t be courts enforcing private ‘secrets’ anymore.
If they trust someone they shouldn’t have too bad, I guess they have to treat their people better, watch their mouths and place a higher emphasis on trust.
But I do think we have to be very careful with conflating privacy with organizational secrecy. There is a huge difference between privacy and secrecy. I do understand that people have private mistakes that they have learned from and there is no need to compound issues with a public forum. I get that, I really do, but to me there will be no privacy if we continue to allow organizational secrecy. I guess if China wants useless backwards secrecy they can get rid of the internet in their country. But its just like with combat and tactics. No more secrets and no more expectation of it and your people suddenly can’t be treated as if they are expendable and you have to be more flexible. Oh no someone leaks your launch codes, well have a expedient means to change them.
Judas didn’t need MaidSAFE to leak. Nor does anyone else. If you propose technological transparency for the Sanhedrin, you propose technological transparency for everyone else too – Like the Original post stated, math doesn’t discriminate, it is either private or it is not. Math doesn’t care who the good guys are or who the bad guys are.
Those in power don’t need secrets to maintain their tyranny. They have the armies, the police and the jails.
Pilate knew the truth, and he really didn’t care.
The FBI was pretty seriously considering imposing some massive transparency on MLK Jr… I would argue that “everyone spies” give a lot more ammo to the guys with guns and prisons than it does to the general public.
Safe net is as much about anonymity as it is about privacy.
Could you please define “organisation”, so we can continue to look into your proposal. For instance, let’s say hypothetically I have a small cake shop and most of my custom comes from the “secret recipe” I use for my sponge mix – do I have to be “transparent” about my “organisational secret”, thereby losing all my customers to a competitor, thereby going broke?. Would I qualify as an organisation in your view and if not why not?
I have already posted that I think Govt bodies should be transparent in the way you suggest to the public and that Corporations should be transparent to Govt. I said the public should be protected from Govt/Corporate spying and be afforded their Privacy also that Corporation/Non Govt Organisation secrets, should remain private too.
I think we agree in spirit 100% but I want to take it a step further and I am not moved by concerns over innovation and competition. I think we do better on innovation with transparency, and useful competition it should actually unlock better economies of scale and prevent tech from being suppressed. But it still allows for a degree of tenuous but incubatory privation.
I think we both agree grandmother’s “secrets,” are private, but also art. We might both be good painters and both know Leonardo’s techniques but not be able to generate the same quality of work, so in that example there is a bit of naturally proprietary art that would be hard to impart.
But with regard to having governments use their police power and expend public money to protect private secrets and use courts and civil and criminal law- I want that gone. I know firms will take steps to protect their trade secrets, but I think going forward their ability to do so will have a lot to do with how they treat their people and I am just fine with that. If firms with deep tech that’s been suppressed in the name of economic stability or military advantage want to keep that stuff under wraps then I guess they again need to treat their people well, but I think one way or another this will release revolutionary tech if there is any to be released.
But as for a practical line… it might be as few people 3 or 4 people before it becomes ‘secret.’ But the context would matter. Law tends to work with enough people to have a conspiracy, and I think that’s a pretty low number. But again the whole point of this, I think is to make sure that we retain our private lives and possibility of the good life. Think of PRISM, what it that dumped all the private info it had collected on Americans in an easily searchable way? Well with proper transparency on any corporation or government project PRISM would never have got off the ground, would have seen it coming and nixed.
I would argue it is a lot murkier than that–
Ought the police disclose where all of their deputies are at any given time? Thus enabling the criminals target a business where a lousy response time is guaranteed?
Ought all of the details of a crime be disclosed at the time in which they are discovered – Thus giving the suspects a feel for how hot the trial is behind them?
Ought the bids on government contracts be disclosed in advance of contracts being awarded - thus allowing the most efficient bidder to bid the most possible and still win?
Ought every potential employer know how much I am paid right now – so they can offer me a salary I am likely to accept without overbidding and actually paying the full market value of my talent?
Ought every company out there know what I buy and how much I pay, so they can more effectively market to me? Corporate transparency violates individual privacy because if I do business with a “transparent” entity, it means they must disclose their transaction with me.
It really is an “everyone or nobody” deal. I vote “nobody” and I vote for privacy.
In answer to each point/paragraph, I would in order say:
I think we may be arguing about different things. I am in agreement that nobody should be spying on anybody else. I am stating that we want Govts to be accountable to the public in the ways we want them to be. I am also saying the tech exists (blockchain or alternative "smart contract system)) that can sit on Safe to facillitate this.
I would agree that there are ways to create governmental transparency with the new distributed consensus technologies.
Encouraging criminal leaking isn’t the right answer… And it is a dangerous marketing strategy that doesn’t accurately represent the potential of the MaidSAFE system. Properly used MaidSAFE ought to increase security, not facilitate breeches.
I don’t think Maidsafe is “encouraging” anything really - it is just providing the platform on which these things will happen. People will have different political opinions as to whether something is positive whistleblowing or criminal leaking - Maidsafe is apolitical in this respect. I’m also quite sure there are no plans to promote negative uses as part of any marketing strategy.
I agree – MaidSafe really doesn’t change the game much as far as leaks go. That is why I think it is really bad to pretend it does, as Warren does. When you sell your platform based on how it helps criminals, you are not going to get a great reception from the public.
You’ll get used to Warren over time…I have…eventually…lol. I think it took us both some time to get used to each other with many skirmishes along the way, but we get along now ok I think. - totally disagree with a lot of stuff though… Warren is very anti-advertising/Sponsorship/Corporations etc and… let’s say his views on some of these things may not be entirely representative of Maidsafe’s views.
Sometimes its just best not to take the blue pill and enter the rabbit-hole and just leave it, otherwise you can get all riled up…I’m talking more generally now (not about Warren) and from experience.
Just thank your lucky stars Warren is not head of Marketing…lol
Except that it changes everything, and you know it.
But I don’t get your perspective. When the Bush Admin was found to be intentionally killing EU journalists in Iraq as revealed by Wikileaks well that was a good natured case of “boys will be boys,” and that Assange is a real “criminal” for revealing that to the US and the world? And PRISM isn’t a problem at all even though it and other efforts in the US mean the next Bush Admin will find it easier to field a total dictatorship as they will have 50 experts on anything a challenger by election or otherwise ever did or said and will use it to blackmail them and everyone they’ve come in contact with and failing that will simply knock them off by using the same tool on others.
You @jreighley may not want to advertise it but this transparency aspect of SAFE and the ability to turn the camera around is the most important function of SAFE by a wide wide margin. It means we can finally do something about arbitrary rule by hereditary wealth and the technology fueled path of destruction through instability its set us on. It also means that that we won’t simply perfect the power of rule by hereditary wealth through centralizing data bases.
Those leaks happened without MaidSAFE – If they where released on MaidSAFE what would be different?
Nothing.
Huge difference, everything Wikileaks and Snowden offers gets vetted/filtered through sponsored media. Those were just a couple drop across 5-7 years this will be a daily torrent. It will radically accelerate change, reconfigure budgets and change organizational culture both private and public. We will finally have due process instead of obstruction and an impeding dark age.
Here is something from the NY times.
Greewald
“My position was straightforward,” Glenn Greenwald writes. “By ordering illegal eavesdropping, the president had committed crimes and should be held accountable for them.” You break the law, you pay the price: It’s that simple.
(Shill):
But it’s not that simple, as Greenwald must know. There are laws against government eavesdropping on American citizens, and there are laws against leaking official government documents."
Isn’t the NY times owned by Mr. Slim? So Bush did what Nixon did with slightly more nuance and this shill that trying to say Greenwald isn’t a nice person is trying to say that law should have prevented the new Nixon from being exposed and pick your law etc.?
To me this system can help get rid of what C.S. Lewis described as the “inner ring” as well. Its an arrogation at the heart of pyramidal corporatism. Some manifestations “inner ring” might be glass ceilings and other forms of prejudice. Think of this time of corporate rights. Corporations are just wrong in so many ways, politically they are little fiefdoms almost monarchical. And they are granted 'rights?" It is outrageous to use that term even if its meant only as a means to settle disputes between corporations it still aligns with the demotion of citizens to consumers and a dilution of real rights held by the people. In the Federalist Papers I think it discusses states as having rights because their sovereign power derives directly from the people who are composed of equal and free citizens. Does that describe arbitrary corporate serfdom- they are empowering dis-empowerment, its more rule by money crap.