Re: <nettime> Enforcing Rights by Technology

[carlo von lynX <lynX@time.to.get.psyced.org>]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:35:15PM -0700, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> It's only a matter of time - when will the cost of batteries beat
> peak pricing, combined with the local generation that needs not
> pushing back. Then the house will suck the power at constant rate
> 24/7 (if it's not generating it all), and the utility won't be able
> to see patterns.

Thank you. That is reassuring news. After writing I also thought
about solar panels etc, so electricity does offer some ways to
avoid the default scenario. I wonder how many people will make
use of such a path, or if, again, the vast majority will indeed
adhere to complete observation while a few excentrics will make
themselves interesting by using independent power management.
It's like using Tor to try to impose civil rights on an infra-
structure that refuses to. It's not democracy if it singles you
out.

But the electricity story was just what triggered my writing.
The *real* point I'm trying to make is that beyond laws that
just claim what we want (which already exist as 'basic law',
'common sense' or 'constitution') and then somehow not be
respected we could have more laws that enforce our rights by
requiring technologies to be used in certain ways.

In particular I want to stress the untapped potential of
requiring specific protocol messages with specific contents,
that is - denying companies the ability to send encrypted or
otherwise proprietary binary blobs from home devices to company
servers, depriving the citizen-owner any access to what is being
transmitted. This could be forbidden, introducing a new kind of
digital civil transparency.

Another similar approach would be to deny anyone but the citizen
the right to execute cryptography in their name: A proprietary
tool like Windows 10 must not use cryptography to impose company
interests on the user - it must submit its content in transparent
form to the citizen's choice of encryption service, which would
typically be a free software firewall/routing stack running in
the house or in form of a VM hyperviser implementing encryption 
according to the laws and by design allowing the owner to exercise
legitimate control.

That I wonder if somebody has thought of before, with pros and
cons, or if it is indeed a completely new perspective worth
pursuing.


On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:21:22AM +0200, carlo von lynX wrote:
> It doesn't have to be this way. Not only can an Internet
> be devised and required by law that ensures end-to-end
> authenticity (stopping Internet scam) and provides inti-
> macy, freedom of association and expression -- it can
> also be designed to be reproducible, transparent, offe-
> ring guarantees down to the level of protocol details.

<...>


 
-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: