The Biden administration is preparing to take the unusual step of issuing an order that would prevent US companies and citizens from using software made by a major Russian cybersecurity firm because of national security concerns, five US officials familiar with the matter told CNN.
That’s one of the costs of liberty. The government will need to find another way.
The barrier to banning something in the interests of national security must be much higher than “this could be used by our enemies.” That’s the entire basis for the War on a Terror, the Patriot Act, and the NSA spying on Americans, and I won’t stand for it. It’s also the same idea as banning books, that’s just not how a free society works.
You combat misinformation through integrity and transparency, not bans.
That’s one of the costs of liberty. The government will need to find another way.
No, that’s not liberty. If the average user would have any way of detecting when software is doing nefarious thighs, then sure, you’d be right, but the average user can’t possibly know that software is misbehaving just like they couldn’t have possibly known that asbestos or lead was bad for them. Software is opaque. As long as it remains opaque, consumers are unsuspecting victims and need help.
Hence the information campaign to make people aware.
Look at cigarettes, they are harmful and therefore have a strong information campaign to inform the public. I highly doubt you’ll find anyone today who isn’t aware of the dangers of smoking, but just 100 years ago, it was considered classy and largely innocuous. The difference was a big information campaign to counter the tobacco lobby’s attempts to spin smoking as somehow healthy.
The government’s role should be to make opaque things transparent, not to bad things that could be harmful. At the same time, they can spy on other countries to get an idea of what types of control they can exert, which would help them better inform the public.
But at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual what they choose to believe. Liberty is having the freedom to make poor choices, and to live with the consequences. The government’s role should be to earn our trust, but they violate it at every opportunity in the name of “security” (NSA, TSA, etc). Yes, a lot of people will ignore it, and that’s a part of having liberty.
Hence the information campaign to make people aware.
There are still those who think the lunar landing didn’t happen so this is not a valid option for something that might pose an immediate danger to society.
But at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual what they choose to believe. Liberty is having the freedom to make poor choices, and to live with the consequences.
Government backed malicious software is not just dangerous to the user, it’s a societal level threat. And unlike smoking, which is banned wherever it poses a danger to more than just the smoker, there isn’t a way to restrict usage in a way in which it only affects the user.
an antivirus that ignores viruses from the county of origin
a social media app that collects data from a device and sends it home
a social media app that likely promotes content with a specific political agenda the government doesn’t like
an app that hides monetary transaction details, which is commonly used by terrorists and other criminals
a social media app that doesn’t id users and allows criminals to use it to communicate
The first two are probably the initial targets, but a law enforcement agency could make a decent case for the rest. Where does it stop?
That’s why I think we need a hard limit on government authority here. It’s better for some bad stuff to propagate than for the scope of what’s blocked to expand and effectively limit freedoms of speech, association, press, etc.
Government have a lot of tools at their disposal, I honestly don’t think banning software needs to be one of them.
There is no way you of knowing what closed software does, especially software such as Kaspersky. Any piece of software can act as a backdoor for total control of all your devices and network. And when that software has the power of a state like Russia or China behind it, it can gain access to all sorts of secrets it shouldn’t have access to and can be used to corrupt people, compromise entire corporate level security systems and entire state level security systems.
Government have a lot of tools at their disposal, I honestly don’t think banning software needs to be one of them.
I really don’t understand why this is where you think the line should be drawn. Countries routinely decide to stop trading with various other countries for multiple reasons. For example, Russia is already under an embargo, why should software of all things be left free. Software is one of the least controllable goods that can be traded across borders.
effectively limit freedoms of speech, association, press, etc.
Since when do you have the freedom to associate with non-US citizens? Do you even understand what this is about!
There is no way you of knowing what closed software does
Sure, and that’s why I very much prefer FOSS and avoid nonsense like Kaspersky. I also actively tell everyone I know to prefer FOSS.
Countries routinely decide to stop trading with various other countries for multiple reasons
I’m also against that, generally speaking. I think open trade promotes freedom and therefore democracy, and blocking trade just encourages more authoritarianism. I have yet to see a case where it actually impacts the leadership enough to matter, especially when it comes to larger countries like Russia.
Since when do you have the freedom to associate with non-US citizens?
Why wouldn’t I? If they have the freedom to associate with me, I should have the freedom to associate with them.
An “if” that translates to you not actually having this freedom.
I’m not sure what your point is. Someone not having the freedom to associate with me doesn’t limit my freedom of association. Someone else being locked away in jail doesn’t mean I’m in jail just because I can’t freely associate with them.
We should be pushing to remove barriers to association, not responding in kind. And yes, that includes changing our foreign policy.
what do you suggest
As I mentioned, the government should raise awareness around the issues of proprietary software, especially software originating from adversarial countries. Don’t raise FUD, but instead fund research into these software products. Get researchers onto platforms where they can reach a wide audience, like late night talk shows, popular YouTube and similar channels, etc.
For individuals, promote and donate to organizations like Mozilla, the EFF, and Proton that push for open software and privacy. Use those services and recommend them to your friends and family.
If you ban something, you just get the Streisand effect and erode trust. If something is dangerous, the best strategy is to be completely transparent about why and provide information that can be independently verified.
Banning software is not the same as banning books, lol. Books are passive ideas, software is active and can be used for espionage. You’re creating a false equivalence here.
If the government can ban things in the name of “national security” based on little more than “it’s potentially dangerous,” what’s stopping them from labeling any platform that doesn’t censor information the way they want as “dangerous” and subject to bans?
The government doesn’t get to choose what I run on my computers, nor do they get to choose what books I read, what movies I watch, etc.
If there’s anything it applies to, it’s government overreach. Look at how the TSA expanded its violation of personal privacy in the name of “security,” or how the NSA and FBI have expanded surveillance of individuals. Look at the militarization of police.
Once you let the government ban a handful of apps, it’s going to use that new power more frequently. That’s what bureaucrats do, when you give them a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
There are so many examples of government getting its foot in the door and steadily expanding its control. That’s what it does.
That’s one of the costs of liberty. The government will need to find another way.
The barrier to banning something in the interests of national security must be much higher than “this could be used by our enemies.” That’s the entire basis for the War on a Terror, the Patriot Act, and the NSA spying on Americans, and I won’t stand for it. It’s also the same idea as banning books, that’s just not how a free society works.
You combat misinformation through integrity and transparency, not bans.
No, that’s not liberty. If the average user would have any way of detecting when software is doing nefarious thighs, then sure, you’d be right, but the average user can’t possibly know that software is misbehaving just like they couldn’t have possibly known that asbestos or lead was bad for them. Software is opaque. As long as it remains opaque, consumers are unsuspecting victims and need help.
Side tangent, but your oopsie of Nefarious Things to “Nefarious Thighs” fucking FLOORED me xD Wish I could detect nefarious thighs!
Hah! I’m not changing it
Sounds like a George Michael song to go along with Careless Whisper.
Hence the information campaign to make people aware.
Look at cigarettes, they are harmful and therefore have a strong information campaign to inform the public. I highly doubt you’ll find anyone today who isn’t aware of the dangers of smoking, but just 100 years ago, it was considered classy and largely innocuous. The difference was a big information campaign to counter the tobacco lobby’s attempts to spin smoking as somehow healthy.
The government’s role should be to make opaque things transparent, not to bad things that could be harmful. At the same time, they can spy on other countries to get an idea of what types of control they can exert, which would help them better inform the public.
But at the end of the day, it’s up to the individual what they choose to believe. Liberty is having the freedom to make poor choices, and to live with the consequences. The government’s role should be to earn our trust, but they violate it at every opportunity in the name of “security” (NSA, TSA, etc). Yes, a lot of people will ignore it, and that’s a part of having liberty.
There are still those who think the lunar landing didn’t happen so this is not a valid option for something that might pose an immediate danger to society.
Government backed malicious software is not just dangerous to the user, it’s a societal level threat. And unlike smoking, which is banned wherever it poses a danger to more than just the smoker, there isn’t a way to restrict usage in a way in which it only affects the user.
But what exactly is the definition of that?
For example, which of these meet that definition:
The first two are probably the initial targets, but a law enforcement agency could make a decent case for the rest. Where does it stop?
That’s why I think we need a hard limit on government authority here. It’s better for some bad stuff to propagate than for the scope of what’s blocked to expand and effectively limit freedoms of speech, association, press, etc.
Government have a lot of tools at their disposal, I honestly don’t think banning software needs to be one of them.
There is no way you of knowing what closed software does, especially software such as Kaspersky. Any piece of software can act as a backdoor for total control of all your devices and network. And when that software has the power of a state like Russia or China behind it, it can gain access to all sorts of secrets it shouldn’t have access to and can be used to corrupt people, compromise entire corporate level security systems and entire state level security systems.
I really don’t understand why this is where you think the line should be drawn. Countries routinely decide to stop trading with various other countries for multiple reasons. For example, Russia is already under an embargo, why should software of all things be left free. Software is one of the least controllable goods that can be traded across borders.
Since when do you have the freedom to associate with non-US citizens? Do you even understand what this is about!
Sure, and that’s why I very much prefer FOSS and avoid nonsense like Kaspersky. I also actively tell everyone I know to prefer FOSS.
I’m also against that, generally speaking. I think open trade promotes freedom and therefore democracy, and blocking trade just encourages more authoritarianism. I have yet to see a case where it actually impacts the leadership enough to matter, especially when it comes to larger countries like Russia.
Why wouldn’t I? If they have the freedom to associate with me, I should have the freedom to associate with them.
That’s a very very big “if” considering US’ foreign policy. An “if” that translates to you not actually having this freedom.
How noble of you, but what do you suggest we do about people who aren’t reached by your words of wisdom?
I’m not sure what your point is. Someone not having the freedom to associate with me doesn’t limit my freedom of association. Someone else being locked away in jail doesn’t mean I’m in jail just because I can’t freely associate with them.
We should be pushing to remove barriers to association, not responding in kind. And yes, that includes changing our foreign policy.
As I mentioned, the government should raise awareness around the issues of proprietary software, especially software originating from adversarial countries. Don’t raise FUD, but instead fund research into these software products. Get researchers onto platforms where they can reach a wide audience, like late night talk shows, popular YouTube and similar channels, etc.
For individuals, promote and donate to organizations like Mozilla, the EFF, and Proton that push for open software and privacy. Use those services and recommend them to your friends and family.
If you ban something, you just get the Streisand effect and erode trust. If something is dangerous, the best strategy is to be completely transparent about why and provide information that can be independently verified.
The cost of liberty and freedom is eternal vigilance from those who want to harm us, and those who claim to protect us.
Banning software is not the same as banning books, lol. Books are passive ideas, software is active and can be used for espionage. You’re creating a false equivalence here.
They’re absolutely in the same category.
If the government can ban things in the name of “national security” based on little more than “it’s potentially dangerous,” what’s stopping them from labeling any platform that doesn’t censor information the way they want as “dangerous” and subject to bans?
The government doesn’t get to choose what I run on my computers, nor do they get to choose what books I read, what movies I watch, etc.
Oh yeah, the fallacious slippery slope again. How creative and intellectual!
If there’s anything it applies to, it’s government overreach. Look at how the TSA expanded its violation of personal privacy in the name of “security,” or how the NSA and FBI have expanded surveillance of individuals. Look at the militarization of police.
Once you let the government ban a handful of apps, it’s going to use that new power more frequently. That’s what bureaucrats do, when you give them a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
There are so many examples of government getting its foot in the door and steadily expanding its control. That’s what it does.