2 things...
Make tech for the techies... if all else fails maybe they will carry the
torch during the dark nights of ignorance.
And people who are willing to go thru that much trouble to secure their
data, most likely won't change their position on activism because of
some tools availability. They are either chomping at the bit for the
fight already or are focused on obscurity... my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Patrick
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 19:29 -0800, humlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Moral questions exist in a big picture. As Rev Josh paraphrases, "this
> will cause an otherwise ignorant population to become aware of the
> problem" versus "they will not be vocal to the abuses of the flawed
> system".
>
> Come on! Most Americans don't know what country Ohio is in, much less
> have any notion of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I give
> you Prop 83 which completely ignores due process, ex post facto, equal
> justice, cruel and unusual punishment, the presumption of innocence -
> all basic ninth-grade civics stuff. Californians were all over it.
> "Sound's great! Punish people for a crime I think they're thinking of
> committing."
>
> The moral question of whether to use nested encrypted volumes or not is
> so far below the noise floor of American ignorance as to have no moral
> significance whatsoever.
>
> There. I ranted.
>
> -Charlie
>
> Rev Josh J. Davies, KSC wrote:
> > I think that what your arguing is that it is better to have a flawed
> > system that is easily and visibly abused, as this will cause an
> > otherwise ignorant population to become aware of the problem; that
> > becuase and educated minority are aware of and understand a way to
> > properly retain their rights, that they will not be vocal to the
> > abuses of the flawed system.
> >
> > In terms of morals, I believe that it is RIGHT to create the software
> > with plausable deniability. You just can't stop there.
> >
> > But, you're not the one in moral question. Why do we allow ourselves
> > to exist in a society where there is a problem of government beating
> > down your door and demanding your personal information?
> >
> > And that's where I'll end this, before it descends into a political
> > rant. -Josh
> >
> >> So here is my ethical question: Is creating software that provides
> >> plausible deniability a moral thing to do?
> >>
> >> Up until today, I had always thought the answer was yes, my private
> >> data is PRIVATE, and any software that helps me keep it private is
> >> good, in a power to the people sort of way. But now that I think
> >> about it, I wonder if the availability of software implementing
> >> plausible deniability is stopping people from engaging in important
> >> political activism. "Why should I campaign for laws preventing law
> >> enforcement agencies from demanding my decryption keys?"
> >> hypothetical person asks. "I have software that provides me with
> >> plausible deniability, so I'll never have to deal with negative
> >> consequences arising from perfectly legal demands for my private
> >> data."
> >>
> >> AFAIK, this is the situation in the UK: If you don't turn over your
> >> decryption keys to the police on demand, they can put you in jail.
> >>
> >>
> >> So, what do you think?
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs.
> > http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
> >
> >
>
|