▲ 221 points
back
311 comments
We've changed the url from https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1486049822847250433 to the original source it points to. Some of the comments were posted before the change, and will make more sense if you've looked at both.
All: while I have you, please post thoughtful, substantive comments. Avoid snark, attack, flamebait, and ideological talking points. The latter lead to the repetitive, nasty sort of internet brawl we're trying to avoid here. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that.
Surveillance-resistant systems are not an answer to authoritarianism.
Private companies do not have freedom of operation in authoritarian regimes.
It's a special sort of odd neoliberal fantasy where capitalists or technologists can route around an authoritarian social movement that seizes the power of the state.
Do you want to know what happens to people who think they can route around an authoritarian regime with clever computer code? There's a relevant XKCD about a $5 wrench [1], except instead of a $5 wrnech it's the entire apparatus of a developed nation-state.
If you really think authoritarianism is coming to your country, stop fucking around with prime numbers and get serious about the work of political persuasion.
Technology people make this mistake a lot. They see a problem like "the government might track all of our payments in the future" and create bitcoin. Or "the government might rootkit our phones" and creates an open source hardware phone. Or "the government might want to see who you are communicating with" and create an E2E encrypted chat application.
None of these solutions do anything to solve the original problem, it just allows a portion of the population to ignore them.
> Surveillance-resistant systems are not an answer to authoritarianism.
> Private companies do not have freedom of operation in authoritarian regimes.
That seems to me like false dilemma of ideal freedom vs authoritarian regimes. Full-scale authoritarian regimes are scary but unlikely risk for western democracies. The real risk is small-scale creeping authoritarian policies accepted democratically with popular support.
We have to consider that liberty is not without real trade-offs between it and other values. It is fantasy to offer political persuasion as a solution. Different people have different preferences for political values and if there is a policy that is unacceptable for liberty-loving minority but satisfies preferences of majority by offering better support for other values, then it is unlikely than just political work can stop it (that would mean to convince others to accept a position detrimental to their own values). And there is enough people who in good faith would like to repress terrorist, CSAM, corruption, tax evasion, public health risks for a 'small' liberty restriction.
While this is 100% correct that Surveillance-resistant systems or other technical means are not he answer to authoritarianism, this statement has at least two problems.
1. A technical solution may not in itself be the way to counter authoritarianism, but may assist in either resisting it or prevent it from gaining enough power. Since democracy is a state of permanent fight against the iron law of oligarchy (which ultimately leads to authoritarianism), any thing that reduces the power of the govt to a certain extent is good. In other words, we don't want the govt to be 100% efficient in whatever it does. Arguably modern tech in current state gives the govt near 100% efficiency in surveillance, so this has to be countered with any means, most of which are of course political and legislative, but surveillance-resistant technology can also play its part.
2. Authoritarianism is not the only threat. It's entirely possible to have a democracy in place and yet have a miserable existence under it. For example, if every perfectly democratic law we have now is enforced with 100% efficiency it will feel very close to a dystopia. Technology can help alleviate this to a certain extent.
> Surveillance-resistant systems are not an answer to authoritarianism.
>
> Private companies do not have freedom of operation in authoritarian regimes.
Companies can never be surveillance resistant, they'll get court orders and follow them.
The only surveillance resistant (not surveillance-proof obviously) technologies are distributed, decentralized ones implemented in open source.
You're right that political activism is ultimately the only good answer. But it's not either/or, it is still quite useful in parallel to also develop, maintain and popularize decentralized systems as much as possible.
> get serious about the work of political persuasion
The Conversations with Tyler Cowen podcast episode "Audrey Tang on the Technology of Democracy (Ep. 106)" has some interesting content in this regard. Tang works on the government side but the same principles are involved regardless of direction.
https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/audrey-tang-tyle...
When authoritarianism comes around, it wont just be surveiling. An a11n regime needs the buy-in of private leadership because the goal is to turn the state into an all-encompasing master of peoples lives, and work is a large part of peoples lives (especially in an a11n regime!)
Whether or not the state can surveil is a moot point if the owners of the tech are in on the game.
> get serious about the work of political persuasion
The thing about populist authoritarian movements is that they're popular. They're supported by a large segment of the population, and that segment is full of passionate intensity while the rest of us lack all conviction [0].
I can't think of a large populist authoritarian movement in the last hundred years that was defeated by mere "political persuasion".
[0] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-comi...
> There's a relevant XKCD
So... what? Don't try? Don't bother? That's like saying don't bother cooking your food because even cooked food can get you sick some of the time. Or do you believe that a hypothetical future authoritarian government can hire an army of thugs to kneecap everybody who they believe shared an anti-regime meme? Censorship-resistant tools are being used by dissidents today to organize against repressive regimes such as in Hong Kong. Laying the framework for anonymous communication today while it's easier just to be on the safe side is worthwhile.
Interesting thought, another reason to get to space.
With the internet and modern IT tools, authoritarian control over the populace is approaching turnkey. Well, it is, we just haven't had a strongman yet in the US (that wasn't an idiot).
The only defense is the speed of light. A question: at what amount of transit time from "the authority" to "the colony" does total information control fall apart? 1 light-minute? 1 light-hour? 1 light-day?
Nevertheless, space will be a whole new set of rules. The "authority" will be on Earth, and won't be able to think in terms of "space".
I strongly agree with you, but at the same time think giving more control to individuals in terms of communication, expression, and infrastructure is probably helpful?
Non-technological and technological solutions aren't mutually exclusive.
I guess I always think of the the quasiomnipotent totalitarian state as a kind of theoretical [anti?]ideal state, sort of like "what's the worst possible case scenario and how does this do in that scenario?"
The goalposts are always being moved but that doesn't mean you shouldn't adjust accordingly.
To be fair, those primes are an exceptionally useful tool if you want to get serious about the work of political persuasion.
They are not what will change things, but they are a tool you can use to disperse ideas and make change happen.
Thank you for your comment.
This is much needed on this website of cypherpunk idealism.
Tor seems to do okay in Russia. Maybe not stellar, but in practice, it seems to work fine. Same for Signal and all this other stuff.
We are long beyond that point, sadly. We are right now in the process of
a) becoming legally required to own and carry a particular kind of device and
b) being legally unable to fully control said device and
c) having that device explicitly working (again by legal requirement) against our own interests
It will be interesting to watch how things will progress and whether governments or corporations will be the ones holding control over the devices.
It will also be interesting to see how the mandatory usage and mandatory anti-user-services will be implemented in detail.
I guess that mandatory usage will be a race between mobile payment and government services like eID and eLicense. Anti-user-services will take some time to be fully developed, but I guess the first thing will be content scanning in messenger apps, closely followed by a list of illegal words or names.
No we aren't.
I don't have to buy a phone. Yes, the apps make the border easier for Covid, but don't be ridiculous. I can fallback to filling out a piece of paper. Furthermore, I can buy an [PinePhone, Librem 5, etc] phone and "fully control" that.
As for c) that's been part of life since the government got the right to tap your phone or telegraph.
Right now there are troubling signs for the direction of American democracy, but the courts have held up and life is still pretty good and, for some, getting better. I know mistakes happen and it isn't perfect, but we're no where close to being forced to own and carry a device.
The TV show Upload [1] has a group of people dubbed the "Ludds" (i.e. Luddites) that refuse to be party to the turn that the technological revolution has taken and stick to traditional ways of doing things. I strongly believe if that were to happen in our world today, much of Silicon Valley would be "Ludds", while a mass of non-tech people would happily welcome our new technological overlords.
Was John of Patmos right?
And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
...
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
What is the device required referenced in 'A'? My mind might just be missing something obvious, but I'm drawing a blank.
What in the world...?!
What's in everyone's coffee this morning?
Specifics needed on (a) please.
a) That device seems to be a gun in my neck of the woods.
b) The device is FULLY controllable by me I can guarantee that.
c) I am glad it does, though this particular one isn't against my own personal interests.
Technological progress and economic incentives seem (to me) to make ubiquitous surveillance unavoidable. Given that, it seems that the best solution would be to force our rulers to be subject to ubiquitous surveillance.
I'm sorry, but appealing to companies makes no sense. For one, it is against their financial interests, and second, if it can be introduced, it can be reversed.
He should appeal to the media instead: they should make people aware not how much control they are giving away now, but how dangerous it can become in the future. But it seems to me very few people would listen or care.
>Reminder to Silicon Valley: there’s an even chance that many governments in the world will be run by authoritarian movements in the future. Your window to deploy surveillance-resistant systems is running out.
Tech companies don't have a great human rights history when there is money to be made.
Tech companies only stand to gain from partnering with an invasive government. The idea that they'd side with us over the state that regulates them and provides a market to seek profit is a fantasy
The most eligible client of a surveillance resistant system is a challenger to the throne, not a pleb. Since the most powerful can optionally exercise their power through persuasion of a multitude of plebs, there is a natural 50/50 split of power between the masses and the elite.
What makes him think tech companies want "surveillance-resistant systems" (whatever that means)?
If you don't collect the data in the first place, a government can't come along and appropriate the treasure trove you just created.
Sure governments can make laws, but most of the laws are far behind what companies are already collecting voluntarily it would seem.
I mean.. Using Twitter doesn't help.
Perhaps start there Mr Snowdon?
"The thing… Oh! My theory about advancing technologies as both our savior and our doom?" - olaf
Some replies to that tweet are super strange. I have no idea what is going on there.
It's almost like Snowden forgot the US has the largest prison population ALREADY. The time ran out in the late 90s when all the Surveillance technology was being built by Silicon Valley.
I honestly don't think deploying surveillance resistant systems now will help against an authoritarian government.
Imagine if WhatsApp, Messenger, and Apple Messages were all fully end-to-end encrypted.
An authoritarian government comes in and demands that Facebook/Meta and Apple release a new version that is either not end-to-end encrypted or somehow allows the government to be able to see the messages.
Do you really think they will resist? Do you see Tim Cook or Mark Zuckerberg willing to have all their wealth confiscated and spend the rest of their life in prison on the charges of assisting terrorism (remember, we are talking about an authoritarian government. Remember also what happened to the Russian oligarchs to defied Putin, and the Jack Ma in China)?
So Facebook and Apple release the new version, and disallow using the old version (users get a popup saying they need to upgrade their app).
Do you really think any significant portion of users will not "upgrade" their apps to the less secure version and lose out on all their existing chat history and networks?
The people that would be aware of this and resist this, are likely using apps like Signal, Matrix, etc (apps that prize security over engagement and that have not come from the Silicon Valley tech giants).
I think it's imperative that governments all over the world take steps to reduce dependence on American infrastructure. Russia is working on this, but it's a slow process - especially on the hardware side of things.
If the US goes (more) rogue at some point, Europe will be left holding the bag. The sphere around Russia and China will make it, but what does Europe have?
Ceci n'est pas une perceuse
But how will we create our utopia?
"This is not a drill" makes me think there's an immediate threat that needs full attention, especially from snowden's account. Is this just more twitter slang to add emphasis?
I'm sorry, what is the context of this tweet? I don't read the news a lot, I apologize.
Why the urgency?
It's painfully obvious OP is talking about a smart phone and a vax passport.
You don't have to be "anti-vax" (which is a stupid stupid term) to be anti-vax-passport.
The people pushing for vax passports have no clue what they are unleashing. It is absolutely fascist, evil and incredibly surprising to me that 99% of the people on this website are in 100% favor of it.
EVIL.
In one HN thread, people complain about the U.S. not forcing people to get vaccinated, and in another thread it's about how the U.S. is becoming an authoritarian state. I take no position on these arguments, I just get spun around trying to track whether the U.S. is being overrun by libertarians or authoritarians sometimes.
Snowden is twitting from Moscow. Russians in a similar position have been formally labeled "foreign agents", imprisoned, or worse. I'm wondering how Snowden managed to avoid a similar fate.
The problem are the people who are blindly following along and calling the other 50% white supremacists for not following along.
I think people are starting to give little credit to the tinfoil hat people because maybe out of all of us, their brand of crazy has merit.
Silicon Valley power bearers neither care about privacy nor democracy, as well illustrated to their actions, as opposed to their lies (like Apple's Privacy scam or cooperation with authoritarian regimes).
We should seriously start looking for heroes elsewhere.
It's kinda scary how fast all this happened. Try taking your kid to an amusement park without surrendering your personal history and current whereabouts. They don't even care to support other avenues because they already know almost no one is going to turn around after arriving, after seeing kids' puppy-dog eyes.
Recent pandemic was the perfect excuse to hit fast-forward on eliminating cash (although not a major transmission factor) and privacy along with it. Never let a crisis go to waste, as they say.
Mr. Snowden is trying very hard to stay relevant. I guess posting family pictures didn't have the desired effect, so he's going for doomporn now.