No Good in Australia where we have pre arrest laws where they can take a person in for questioning/processing without any charges (or even intent to charge) and the person has no rights to stop the authorities from searching them and copying anything they have. Australia also has the right to put you away in secret for upto 2 weeks and its a criminal offence for anyone to reveal that fact. Again without charging you, just claim you are somehow associated with terrorism and the stupidity is that no one can challenge that and no court will ever hear the case over those 2 weeks.
I had some time to read at the hotel while traveling, so I ended up reading the whole thread.
Interesting topic with interesting points of view with varying themes since thread inception. Three main thoughts/questions that have persisted for me are 1) other than being an interesting philosophical question and fun technical challenge, POUH or POH doesn’t appear to solve an actual network issue that can’t be addressed by other less intrusive means like POR-POS-POW and 2) IMO the whole concept is antithetical to the fundamental philosophy/principles of Secure Access For EVERYONE.
With regard to 2) the only reason to differentiate between human and non-human network agents is to provide priviledges or penalties to one or the other under various scenarios. This would bake a form of identity based discrimination into the network protocol that sets a slippery stage for rather signicant abuses in the future. IMHO, in order to maintain objectivity, accounts should only be given privileges or penalties based on what they do, not based on how they identify. This comes down to safecoin rewards and malice detection or other methods for thwarting bad actors and rewarding good ones based on how they interact with the network.
Actually safecoin and paying for resources including account creation and ID creation solved the issues for the safenetwork at the network level. Even though these are small charges it prevents an entity from overly spamming the network creating the structures needed for account and public IDs
But yes what you say is a good summary and I too have trouble with identity being the controlling factor.
Of course though some classes of applications of applications will benefit from having a genuine rating for IDs wishing to use their services (not talking here of POUH or POH though). But the issue here also (even with web of trust systems) is that spoof/faking ratings will be possible. Suggest a method and there will be a way to spoof/fake it. Just watch science fiction movies and you see many examples of how they try to achieve POUH and how its faked. Even using DNA for identifying people. Also in real life every time someone comes up with a method to identify people there are others who fake it. And nothing today has any chance of being fool proof.
So do we just accept 95% fool proof?
I’d suggest that with a 95% foolproof system that you would see a lot more than 5% fake, simply because the fakers take the 5% and just keep exploiting the 5% error rate over and over again. Even a 99.5% foolproof would see very much more than 0.5% fake accounts/ids because you just keep exploiting the 0.5% error and online without KYC/government/etc it’d be a lot worse. Even this forum would have double the accounts because of the 1000’s of fake accounts if we didn’t delete the spammers
Hence why I mentioned the need for reasonable laws and a governance model that ensures it at all times as a prerequisite.
Remember, Australia and others are only taking such draconian measures because they know no better way of enforcing security (let’s give them the benefit of the doubt here). Perhaps if we have a viable privacy-protecting alternative they might reconsider. Otherwise we’ll know that they have other motives behind it, and only then we can take the appropriate measures to relieve them of their duties.
Wow. You managed to put together the most terrible idea I encountered on this forum.
Sadly, it’s clear you’re not just trolling…
We obviously can’t. The “law” doesn’t exist as a single monolithic entity. It’s highly contextual and the context is often that of an autocracy, that deems freedom and privacy are not reasonable expectations. All of the so-called “free countries” have a long history of abusive laws too.
Also, the internet is a global network, one without borders. Whose laws would you want to enforce? In other words, which global minority’s narrow interpretation of right and wrong will you force onto the rest of humanity?
Your opinion is that of an authoritarian government. Hey, China is implementing your idea right now! (Hm, this answers my previous question: you chose to favor the laws of the world’s “largest minority”.) Considering the CCP’s influence, it’s unlikely that their upcoming mandatory Social Credit System, where citizens are continuously graded by the services they use, wouldn’t eventually get the hardware support you’re proposing.
EDIT: LMAO I JUST REALIZED YOU LIVE IN CHINA
EDIT2: Looking at some of your other content, I can’t wrap my head around where this idea came from…
What the actual f***?
My device will not do stuff without my consent, period. Even without the theoretical impossibility of making stuff like that abuse proof, that’s an unacceptable proposition.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate all the crap that’s going on in this world. However, if the Safe Network performs as designed, there will be no ways to track people and evesdrop on communication without compromising the actual device or its operating system, and that’s a good thing.
We have to face reality and admit that there are some problems that can’t be solved. If encryption is involved, we can’t cherry-pick who we want to allow in: either it’s everyone or no one, ensured by the very rigid and universal laws of mathematics that no puny government laws can override.
Let’s not forget that being Jewish wasn’t against the law for much of the time and then it was a death sentence. Something you say may be inconspicuous today and get you hung tomorrow. Your opinion can be fine in one country and get you arrested while crossing another.
TL;DR Your idea is f***ing terrible.
@JoeSmithJr you somehow managed to completely mischaracterise what I said.
I spoke of a privacy-protecting alternative to a surveillance society, and you compared it to China’s social credit system which is the pinnacle of a surveillance and totalitarian regime.
Not only are they stripping their people of all privacy, but they are rewarding and punishing every-day actions, rather than just keeping really bad people locked up (and we also know that PRC’s definition of bad is not one that we would always agree with). The China social credit system is the ultimate mass manipulation system, where the last thread of freedom is stripped away the moment you’re born.
What I suggested is not the same. What I suggested is the total privacy for each and every person, unless a person poses a serious threat to society. And believe it or not I think reasonable people without prejudices, or personal agendas can agree on a universal definition of what a serious threat might mean, which is what led to my carefully worded last paragraph (now with emphasis):
This is in my opinion an absolute prerequisite “for any of this to work”. You mentioned a very good example, and I’ll back that by reminding you that good intentions (by collecting census information on religion for giving people a proper burial) were later misused for one of the most atrocious acts in recent human history.
You may believe it’s impossible to achieve such a future foolproof legal system, one where a future wannabe dictator (looking at the unfortunate rise of the right-wing) can’t single-handedly mark a whole group of people as criminals, or that a decency chip would work (unhackable) but it doesn’t change the fact that if worked, it would in theory be the best solution available to us.
Yep, and we’ve seen people possessing a knife shot simply because they possessed a knife. Hell that includes most Aussies that could be shot if the police wanted to. Luckily the police don’t do such things normally and its so rare to not be thought about. But taking home a pack of steak knives is technically illegal in Australia unless you get a chance to prove it was for a lawful reason. (who gets permission before buying steak knives?)
Yep we seen people (one was Benn Grub - tech reporter) “pre-arrested” because they attended a legit conference in QLD and their laptops copied. Only link that anyone can determine is that a “person-of-interest” reportedly also attended the conference. But these people would have had that chip copied too.
So no I do not think that having such a thing today with “good” laws is any guarantee that tomorrow a law like Australia’s pre-arrest law would not be introduced. Or that a state of emergency is called over some supposed incident and everyones chip is copied in a supposed attempt to find those supposed terrorists or whatever.
The point is that if you want security of data then don’t store it in the first place.
So to have a device that records things that the authorities can read because they claim you are bad, is also a very bad idea. At least SAFE means that the authorities have no means to read your data and cannot unless you let them. And the fact you can have alternative accounts to reveal in order to satisfy the law means that its very difficult for the authorities to break into your privacy. IE you are always the one who is in charge of your privacy. A big step forward for humanity (having choice of privacy)
EDIT: the point is that we’ve always lived with those who are bad, and to give up essential privacy just so a couple more dumb criminals can get caught is folly. Those dumb crims will get caught anyhow. The smart ones will know how to fool/fake those chips anyhow
Education is the key to a more civil society. As education rises so does the overall crime drop. In Australia its been dropping since the late 80’s which incidentally saw the rise of on-line systems which augmented schooling and allowed people freedom of information that the authorities thought mere mortals could not handle. And the chief statistician made these claims of dropping crime rate using country wide figures and that sexual crimes have been dropping significantly too. Maybe its just a case of who’d thought porn could be good for a nation and not education
I’m sure we’ll agree that shooting innocent people does not fall into our definition of sensible. I’m also sure we’ll agree that most laws today are nonsensical. It is virtually impossible to go a day without technically breaking the law. In my opinion, if you’re not an immediate threat to the lives of others then the law has no business in interfering with your way of life.
So when you say:
No, you’re projecting the flaws of current fear-driven laws and their enforcement onto a theoretical system that is meant to address those very flaws. Today they need to invade your privacy and harass you just to find out your intentions, and I’m suggesting a system that replaces the need for all that.
No. Bad are those we all agree are bad. You are still thinking top-down authoritarian systems. I’m thinking bottom-up decentralised consensus of what bad means, and in my opinion that would be people who plan to imminently cause physical arm to others.
So if your main argument is that we can’t have such a system that guarantees sensible laws then fine, I’ll grant you that it’s not a trivial thing. Lately we’ve seen how democracy is vulnerable to those who exploit the uneducated majority. So in that regard we both agree that education is key.
It may not be trivial, but it’s also not impossible and it’s worth exploring. If it doesn’t work, if governments don’t take it up as an alternative to surveillance then we’ll have to get used to being criminals just to protect our privacy/freedom and guess what, as a criminal your freedom will be severely limited unless you want to go live in a small island in the middle of nowhere (something that I’ll definitely consider if/when it comes to that).
Since we live in a world where that theory cannot operate then its no good for the real world.
Yes theory is alright to have and discuss, but in this case its of little benefit since history shows that your theory cannot survive in the real world.
Basically the rule is “If you store data that can be accessed by others - then it will given opportunity and/or desirability without your consent or original purpose” Then from that we need theory to take account of this. SAFE is pretty close to this goal since the data is under the control of the user and does not need to be revealed even under compulsion since dummy accounts are available if one sets them up before. But POUH is not.
I’m not convinced that it’s theoretically impossible to achieve, and our history is what we’ll make of it.
Only if we learn from history. And governments that trample on rights is going to happen. Human greed and power hungry people are not going to disappear in my, my childrens, my grandkids and probably not for 10 to 1000s of generations to come lifetimes. Don’t store the data or don’t allow any chance of access is the solution, not to given them access when they deem fit.
It is technologies that LOCK OUT governments from unwanted revealing of private data that has any chance of nullifying that power greed. By giving governments access when they deem fit is not going to work because of human nature.
Agreed. Don’t have time to explain now, but that greed (specifically corporate greed) will actually be key to pushing this kind of change. Governments don’t care for privacy-protecting alternatives (I’ll admit that they may have less genuine reasons for surveillance), but they won’t have a choice when their main tools of surveillance are replaced with privacy-protecting alternatives.
I guess I’m not making myself clear in this regard. Maybe I’ll start a post about a decentralised governance system some other day. Or maybe I’ll just link to the soon to be launched experiment over at Tezos.
Haha seriously, if you read enough you might actually come round and join me in exploring these ideas.
They’re not nearly as bad as you originally thought. You may consider them naive, but not inherently bad.
It does require a significant change of mindset, which is not easy. And it requires thinking about the world in a totally different way. It’s a world that doesn’t exist today, but if we can imagine it, we can do it.
I’ve skimmed this topic…
Would like to say. I’d strongly prefer not to have any biometric link to the formation of my account, this would put me off.
How would you deal with accounts created to run coorporate applications, who would donate their biometrics to create an account.
I wasn’t trying to. To be honest, I was so completely shocked that I didn’t even check who you were at first and only after looking at a few of your other posts a bit later did I realize… I don’t even know what. Your idea still don’t make sense in light of what you seem to represent unless you have great misunderstandings and unreasonable expectations about how the world does or can work.
I do agree in a philosophical sense, but I strongly disagree from a practical point of view:
- There are no reasonable people because “reasonable” is defined “thinks like me”.
- There are no people without prejudices because everybody looks at the world through their own unique experiences.
- People burnt witches and scientists alike, bought and sold slaves, beheaded women because they were raped or because they said women aren’t the property of men. All of these were (and some are being) done in the name of defending society from great evil, so go figure.
- The rules are not defined by reasonable people without prejudices and an accurate view on what’s right and wrong to society, but by people in power.
So, for your idea to work, we would not only need a single entity who is reasonable and is without any prejudices and would also possess a completely accurate view of what poses a serious threat to society (and here we’ve already touched on almost everything that people went to wage wars over) but we’d also need this entity to be universally accepted and respected by all governments over the world, them being the authorities this device would not only report to, but released by.
It’s like, let’s ignore everything that happened and everything we know, then come up with new and desirable laws of human nature and declare that’s our new reality. It’s very modernist and, with that, empirically unfounded, to say the least.
I love this. It’s cute. Also, it’s never gonna happen.
Any time a new technology comes around, people go like, “this will be the thing that solves all the problems!” and “this time it’s different!” History tells us we should be wiser than that.
The problem has never been the lack of a good enough technology, but a lack of perfect enough people.
However, if it didn’t work, it would bring about the worst autocracy the world has ever seen. (Emphasized because this is the main point.)
We shouldn’t play with stuff like that even if it could in theory help with things a bit. The potential* benefits are way outweighed by the possible** downside. In other words, if one possibility is extinction (here, of freedom), it must not be tried.
I believe that is the age old problem of ‘who watches the watchman’. We simply can’t trust them.
It goes a lot deeper. Who picks the watchman to start with, or the one who gets to pick that who picks the watchman? It’s impossible to not prioritize a single narrow worldview of a minority against the many diverse worldviews of the global majority in this game.
People in the same room can’t agree on bathrooms and marriages and yet here we are, talking about a global standard that all powers around the world would happily accept and honor with great integrity. Mind blown.
Also, how about the many autocracies and criminal organizations and “bad people” in general? Backdoors don’t honor any laws or morality.
The only way to win this game is by not starting to play it.
Interestingly, if you have a vote in a small room and then take the belongings from the minority and share them out, people get offended and call it theft. Multiply it up to millions of people and most people accept it as normal and civilised.
Yep, if you don’t want data misused then don’t store it in the first place.
Its not a good idea, even with perfect everything to store such information. It is impossible that it will not be misused even under that perfect environment. Human nature says the bad men will misuse it, the very same bad men its supposed to expose. Unfortunately eventually some of those bad men will also join the governing bodies.
History is a great teacher