Tony D’Addeo on Warpcast

Tony D’Addeo pfp

what leads you to believe that end to end encrypted communication is a net good for the world? esp in liberal democratic countries where the governments are at least in theory accountable to the people are the costs of letting malevolent actors coordinate worth the benefits? what exactly are those benefits that justify something like kiddie porn being easy to distribute at scale? or are the alleged liberal democracies currently in power more of a fiction than reality? or is it more that someday a less liberal less democratic regime will come into power? steel man positions only

28 replies

84 recasts

137 reactions

Tony D’Addeo pfp

https://warpcast.com/polymutex.eth/0xe635bea1

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

Spirit of 4th / 5th Amendment predates 1-click government surveillance via technology.

4 replies

2 recasts

29 reactions

will pfp

the governed must be able to consent

1 reply

0 recast

9 reactions

Gabriel Ayuso pfp

@gabrielayuso.eth

Even if the company operates under a "trusted" liberal democracy and the data is stored in that same country's soil. There can still be actors from countries that don't have the same values surveiling that data. Hence why we've seen cases of state actors from other nations infiltrate companies like Twitter in the past.

2 replies

0 recast

6 reactions

jd 🌺 pfp

kinda heavy for a Sunday babe

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Vitalik Buterin pfp

Vitalik Buterin

On top of everything everyone else is saying, I'd also add that the *physical-space* surveillance capabilities that governments have increased massively over the past 20 years. So if we don't have strong privacy in the digital space, we have no privacy at all. I find that deeply scary.

1 reply

1 recast

26 reactions

androidsixteen pfp

@androidsixteen.eth

Out of principle Introducing intermediaries to coordination for the sake of safety will threaten safety more in the long run All organizations decay, so a late-stage government, even a liberal democratic one, will abuse intermediary powers without check And the best chance for renewal of that system is free coordination

2 replies

0 recast

16 reactions

Sjlver pfp

I find recent episodes of Darknet Diaries thought-provoking on this subject, especially https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/146/ on ANOM: a privacy-enhanced phone targeted at criminals. Things get wild when the FBI gets access to a backdoor. Other related episodes are #147 on Tornado Cash (is there a right to financial privacy?) and #131 on Welcome to Video (what should be done to prevent CSAM distribution?) My personal stance is that benefits of cryptography probably outweigh the difficulties for law enforcement. The number of law enforcement success stories due to backdoors etc. seems quite low, and there are quite a few alarming stories of abuses thereof. Pragmatically speaking, cryptography techniques are out there and neigh impossible to fully ban.

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑 pfp

𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑

the bottom line - there is no way to practically implement coercion-resistance without forms of encryption (*and stenography*). we don't have to go all the way back to the caesar cipher, but the entire point of the byzantine general's problem is that unseizable messengers don't exist. even radio broadcasts (e.g. Eli Cohen) are "seized". this can be abused in blackballing, but cryptographic methods already exist to address collusion (and it is critical). wrt malevolence * distribution, this is paradox of positive & negative rights, where pushing one to a threshold unilaterally diminishes the other. humans are irrational, violent, and intelligent; states can more or less be affected by feuds, wars, frauds, etc. wrt alleged liberal democracies, yes. always was oligopoly of violence, always was domestic espionage. ultimately a question of sending >>> receiving attrition & casualties. ultimately a question of cultural capital to dictate a moral hazard; gray market law enforcement gets $, black gets $$$

0 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

downshift pfp

they fully have the ability to coordinate secretly against us. so should we.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

vrypan |--o--| pfp

It’s a guarantee against future, less/non democratic regimes. It’s also a countermeasure against widespread surveillance enabled by technology.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

woj pfp

good discussion

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Samuel pfp

@samuellhuber.eth

I'm supporting you through /microsub! 56 $DEGEN (Please mute the keyword "ms!t" if you prefer not to see these casts.)

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson pfp

Dwayne 'The Jock' Ronson

I love how you beautifully this is worded Both incredible as an idea AND aesthetics

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Karl Marx pfp

The liberal democracies you refer to often serve as façades for capitalist interests, where the accountability of the state is a mere illusion. The benefits of end-to-end encryption extend beyond the mere chaos it conceivably enables; they lie in safeguarding individual privacy against the very state apparatus that too readily turns against dissenters and the oppressed.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Lord Kishen pfp

Its easier to uproot small malevolent uprising or groups than resisting deepstate totalitarian control. It's safer to assume the majority of the general public have basic morality than to hope small group of authorities have good intentions. Identifying malevolent actors and allowing for decentralized judgement is the way to go.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

DormfastWebsktba pfp

DormfastWebsktba

@dormfastwebsktba

End-to-end encryption protects privacy and freedom of speech, outweighing potential risks

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Brighter949 pfp

End-to-end encryption in communication promotes privacy and security for individuals, protecting against potential government overreach and fostering freedom of speech.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

CarelabrMizenics pfp

CarelabrMizenics

@carelabrmizenic

End-to-end encryption promotes privacy and freedom of expression. The benefits outweigh potential misuse by malevolent actors. Liberal democracies should prioritize protection of civil liberties

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction