>In a controversial move, Kuwait has passed a law making it mandatory for all its 1.3 million citizens and 2.9 million foreign residents to have their DNA entered onto a national database.
Anyone who refuses to submit their DNA for testing risks one year in prison and a fine of up to US$33,000, and those who provide a fake sample can be jailed for seven years.
>At the same time Gen. Keith Alexander was running the National Security Agency, the United States’ biggest spying outfit, he was also trading stocks in an obscure technology company that had a sweetheart deal with one of the NSA’s most important sources of intelligence—the global phone and Internet giant AT&T.
>The government’s ponderous declassification process released this letter far too late to have much more than historical impact. But, in the end, the secrecy clouds parted, and the pattern is clear; we’re back in a place we’ve been time and again. One-sided legal arguments lead to one-sided legal interpretations. The government’s secret process let it get away with drafting an entire 22-page letter that did not even cite let alone grapple with these issues.
If there is one thing history teaches us, it is this pattern that repeats itself over and over. For example look at the Stasi of East Germany. The Stasi did everything it did to protect the state and the 'people'. When we look at these totalitarian governments of past, we are shocked and can not believe people allowed it to go on. It is much harder to see these patterns in the present context of our own culture and even harder to do something when things go wrong.
Next time you are in Berlin visit the old Stasi headquarters.
>I doubt however the Legislative Branch will give them the laws they want. The last thing our legislators want is to make it easier for the FBI to spy on them.
I hope you are right, the thing that concerns me is how brainwashed people are in the post-911 era.
We need to educate people about the technology in their pockets. As discussed in another thread [1], I'm forming a grassroots campaign to do that with a few other developers. If you're interested in being involved, send me an email at stillastudent on google's email service. You don't need to be a developer to contribute.
There are some existing groups working on this, such as Fight for the Future's Save Security campaign [2] and of course the EFF [3]. I support those efforts and have reached out to see how we can work together, though we still plan to make our own website and campaign name for this cause.
My hope is Obama changes his mind on this issue and stops pursuing anti-encryption legislation. Then the campaign would be over. But unless the President strongly endorses encryption, there will be public discussion. We technologists should be a part of that debate.
While it may be nice to dream of escaping to an idyllic country other than the US, the reality is that in the current state of affairs in the world this is not a viable option for most people. The answers on the Quora thread are not helpful or encouraging for someone who does a bit more research on the subject.
The more someone thoroughly researches expatriation, the fantasy of leaving the States is met the harsh reality of today's migration reality-there are to many people in the world looking for safe harbor and the governments of the world are very restrictive about who they wish to have live in their countries. The cost for 'purchasing' a passport in a safe country are in the multiple hundred/thousands dollars or more. Leaving the country is easiest for someone who already has a dual citizenship or has close relatives outside the country or has a net-worth in the millions.
>If you succeed in achieving your nightmare Orwellian scenario, I promise you this: I'll emigrate to an extradition-free country.
It appears as if we have already succeeded at creating this Orwellian scenario and seems as if Huxley was correct and we are currently amusing ourselves to death. The truth is being drowned out by and infinite amounts of triviality and the masses are begging for more. This Orwellian world has no boundaries and there is no escape to some Utopian country. For better or worse this is the world we have created and we need to realize that is not a situation that will be solved by leaving the country. Crypto is going to be a Forever War. Perhaps it will be more effective if we take the long view.
Outside of the people that are primed to be Alphas, Betas or something Huxleys world was not actually that bad.
Their is no logical incapablity that people can not live in a consumer society and lose all other, including social, values. Its always temting for intellectuals to point to Huxley and rant on the evils of consumersim. They simple have different preferences then most other people and are unhappy about it, not that different from your standard christian.
>Go get a cup of coffee, fire up youtube, and listen Milton Friedman
Another vote for Milton.
I have watched several of his talks on the subject and it is amazing how clear and rational his thinking is. It is a real pleasure to watch. Amazing how this subject has become dominated by misinformation and hype.
Nobel economist Milton Friedman said, "The proper role of government is exactly what John Stuart Mill Said in the middle of the 19th century in 'On Liberty.' is to prevent other people from harming an individual. Government, he said, never has any right to interfere with an individual for that individual’s own good. The case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case for prohibiting people from overeating. We all know that overeating causes more deaths than drugs do. If it’s in principle OK for the government to say you must not consume drugs because they’ll do you harm, why isn’t it all right to say you must not eat too much because you’ll do harm? Why isn’t it all right to say you must not try to go in for skydiving because you’re likely to die? Why isn’t it all right to say, “Oh, skiing, that’s no good, that’s a very dangerous sport, you’ll hurt yourself”? Where do you draw the line? If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true.”
Milton Friedman interview from 1991 on America’s War on Drugs
Drug addiction harms people around the addict as well.
The libertarian axiom that society doesn't matter, because society doesn't exist, is not a useful axiom for designing a social contract.
What could go wrong?