by ben_w | 2025-04-08 10:53:04+00:00
Unfortunately, I don't see there is any healthy middle ground with even existing tech, let alone future tech.

--

From the perspective of tech, secrets are mandatory and impossible:

Mandatory for the functioning of identification, of logging in with a secure password that remains secure. The modern world would just stop functioning if passwords were not secure, if online orders or banking could be intercepted by criminals, and there's no way to limit encryption to "just the people who need it", because that's approximately everyone on approximately all economically relevant websites.

Impossible, because surveillance tech is already powerful, and also improving so fast. Drones with telephoto lenses to watch you type your password, or duplicate every key on your physical keyring. WIFI used as wall-penetrating radar. Laser microphones to hear your conversation. Side-channel attacks from Van Eck phreaking onwards. The attacks are increasingly affordable, I have to assume at this point that organised crime uses them.

(For future tech, I think we're only a few years from "smart dust" that's actually dust-sized).

--

From politics, it's no better:

We all know about our own secrets, the importance of keeping them. Many of us are familiar with the lessons of history, where governments use secret police to engage in covert ops against a political, ideological, or social opponents and dissidents — even the term "secret police" is a shorthand for authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. And the CIA and FBI (and some US state entities like the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission[0]).

But.

Internationally, between governments, these forces battle each other. The CIA needed to be secretive and have the power to snoop, to be able to intercept the KGB agents trying to influence things.

As the MSSC (which I only learned about while writing this comment) shows, one polity's idea of unwanted political interference is another polity's idea of natural justice. (Indeed, the whole cold war has been described as a "friendly debate over which economic system is good and which one is an evil virus of Satan"[1]).

To a government, there's no important difference between outsiders who want change because they themselves are the barbarians at the gate and those who want change because they're a fifth column. States group together everything that might be a threat from unarmed students fatally shot by an Ohio National Guardsman for daring to protest against the draft, to whoever it was that shot up some power transformers a few years back[3], to MS-13, in the same way your immune system goes against all things that might cause illness regardless of if that's a common cold, COVID, or an infection that tries to pretend to be pancreatic cells and thereby triggers type-1 diabetes.

You, personally you, (and me) need some kind of intelligence agency that goes around and infiltrates all the groups that think we shouldn't be able to do ${insert liberty here}. For me, that includes freedom to be bi, freedom to not be a Christian, and freedom to not be a Muslim — there's people in this world today who want to end each of these things, and in the past also people who wanted to ban left-handed writing (another freedom relevant to me).

"Freedom to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose" and all that. But paradox of tolerance, how do you stop someone else who wants everyone to be free to swing a fist into ${outgroup}'s noses, how do you stop them rising to power? Who watches the watchers?

There's more freedoms that I'd like to have and don't, freedoms that other people would be horrified by. People in power in many places would not want me to be able to organise to become free in those ways, they would see it as a threat. One of the freedoms that I want and which powerful people see as a threat was my preference for the EU over the UK, especially with regard to the Human Rights Act and associated courts (but also, I'm not a royalist), where some commentators during the Brexit wanted to leave the human rights courts as part of Brexit, and the only thing I could do to remain confident about it in light of the uncertainty was to leave the UK myself — many in positions of power in the UK, were talking about people like me who like the EU in such terms, calling us "Quislings" and similar.

--

I think this is a U-shaped problem: the only two stable conditions are (1) a horrifyingly omnipresent surveillance state that enforces whatever social norms it happened to coalesce out of, or (2) a nearly anarchic system, in an economy that's either post-money or hard-cash-only (no digital), where nobody even has the capability to organise groups because everyone can see the attempt immediately.

[0] TIL, and WTF, "a permanent authority for maintenance of racial segregation with a full staff and funds for its operations to come out of tax money": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_...

[1] 18 minutes into "history of the entire world, i guess": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_County_substation_attack