Proof of unique human


#367

“the only winning move is not to play”, not sure if that was an intentional quote, but I like that movie.

But remember, the game is already being played, and we’re loosing, badly. In fact, your worst case scenario is already becoming a reality, driven by corporate greed (surveillance capitalism) as well as governmental self-preservation (using national security as an excuse). The dystopian version of the decency chip is all around us, and it’s being designed without the slightest regard for our privacy. It’s as if we are all bad people who deserve no privacy because there’s no other way to sort the good from the bad. Some people claim that we already lost.

I refuse to accept that.

A technology that provides everyone with the blanket of privacy is great. I advocated for it for years. But we cannot ignore the increasing threat that some technological advancements pose in the hands of the wrong people. How will you feel when a major terrorist attack is successfully carried out and you learn that they used the SAFE network to coordinate it? You know it’s not a matter of if but when, and I think we have a moral duty to at least think about ways to mitigate that threat, but in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to game the system by a minority (the autocratic power we both dislike).

We have already, it’s called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it’s probably one of the best documents ever written by humankind. Surely adapting it to something that machines can process would be a worthwhile effort to being with.

I will end my side this exchange by saying that I don’t know if this will work or not. I’m not a prophet, I can’t predict the future, but I am an optimist and like to think that it might work, specially in light of the very bleak alternative that we already find ourselves in today. What I can offer is my attention and effort in exploring this concept, which I’m doing as part of my PhD research. And because I care more about scientific integrity and exploring what is right than being right, I will try to be as unbiased as I can. If the conclusion is that “it’s a really bad idea” then I will fight against it with everything I have, which by then should be sound scientific evidence.


#368

I admit I was unclear. I meant the game where we try to figure out how we could weaken the system “just enough” to make sure “reasonable powers” would still get the memo about who was naughty.

We tend to think that just because that’s how everyday life works there sure must be a way to do something similar with encryption. It simply isn’t the case. Mathematics is not as flexible as everyday life.

And then of course what I keep repeating to no avail: there isn’t even a way to define what’s okay and what isn’t that them powers would all agree on. I mean, let’s start a worldwide revolution or something, fine with me… /s