First off I don’t expect (or want) development to stop. My bug bear all along has been that there is no fallback if things go tits up.
I understand the dilemma and am not claiming to have an answer…I’ve tried that before and I don’t think any suggestion would be taken seriously as the appetite here is for total non-regulation.
Do you really think turning off computers, uninstalling, etc. is an acceptable fail-safe? Why would someone motivated by what the network offers them uninstall it? Plus when they uninstall the data is still potentially in the network.
The analogy with cars doesn’t work at all. The dangers of cars (as we are now) wasn’t understood 100 years ago however the core benefits were, i.e. getting places quicker. If it turned out that more people died than got to places quicker then cars would never have caught on.
With SAFE you will have people that get a benefit (as far as they are concerned) from the network which this damages other people (child and revenge porn being just obvious examples). If these people are careful then they will be completely undetectable and continue damaging people forever. Even after they die their data may persist. If I’m taken off the road my car is too.
I was actually shocked the other day when I saw David Irvine suggest a ghost account feature. So if I’m arrested I can give the police my ghost credentials which log you into an account that looks active. Last I had contact with him he claimed to be seriously considering how to prevent abuse of the network and was flying the flag for detective work type policing rather than blanket surveillance. This idea of ghost accounts completely spits in the face of this.
If you have another analogy let rip, I’m afraid cars doesn’t work.
Incorrect… Cars where VERY dangerous and controversial when they came on the scene… Streets where for people, and cars where a very dangerous intrusion… MaidSAFE likely isn’t anywhere near as dangerous… But still could have unforeseen consequences…
It is what it is. If then network is as popular as cars, then no, there will be no shutting it down anymore than we can kill the automobile… If it isn’t popular, it will die out of non-use… Technology is very rarely un-invented if it is useful.
hmhmm - ok since your horror-scenario is child and revenge porn … that is evil and bad … but a social problem not a technological one … i’m right with david irvine when it comes to this topic … it is way too important to help people in “difficult countries” to not getting tortured or killed only because they don’t agree with the regime… sorry i’m very pro non-regulation …
I haven’t yet read the posts between this quote and here because I want to make a specific reply.
The vote for or against the SAFE will not be made by some governmental body (or other fictional construct), it will be made by individuals deciding to use it or not, and deciding what aspects of it to use or not. The structure itself is an attempt to be neutral by design. That is the only way which will allow fairness.
The majority voting against the network won’t directly keep the minority from using it, true. I don’t want the majority to have the power to decide everything. That’s a potential built-in problem with democracy. (The old two wolves and a sheep analogy.)
Essentially, the SAFE Network will allow individuals to interact freely, privately and securely. Period. It will give the individual tremendous control over what happens to his data and his experience of what the network brings to him.
Could there be unintended consequences of the effort to put this in place? Of course there could. That’s true of anything, including allowing a very small elite oligarchy, such as now exerts huge financial, political and social control globally, to continue conducting just exactly the sort of experiments with the world which you are cautioning against.
I’d rather go with empowering the individuals–good, bad or indifferent–rather than a small group, regardless of how well-meaning they might be.
This sounds to be sort of the fear of Skynet of terminator fame. If so, you’ve not sufficiently understood the design and dynamics of the MaidSafe technology. It’s designed to be very pervasive and capable, but it’s not an entity that can, in itself, gain self awareness or be used by any central group or entity. That’s the WHOLE point. It’s the philosophy which dictates the design and execution. There is tremendous cooperation amongst nodes of the network, but only to accomplish extremely neutral tasks: storage and retrieval and routing of data, in secure and private ways that allows greater freedom for individuals to use it without constraint–that’s it.
Will that allow terrorists to communicate more freely? Sure. Will it allow provide the same freedom for everybody else? Yeah.
The alternative is to deny freedom to everybody. I don’t want to play that game. And THAT is the game that is being played right now. That’s not an imagined possibility. That’s fact, right now.
I mustn’t have been clear in my post. I’m well aware that SAFE is just a network. However, the next logical step is distributed software execution on that network. I guess early on the main desire for doing this is cheap super-computing and data processing, a la SETI@Home, Hadoop, etc. Years down the line though if/when true AI is realised then a tempting home for it will be a massive, decentralised network. Unfortunately, in this scenario major reasons why you’d want the AI to live in this style of network is also why you wouldn’t want it to, i.e. it becomes unstoppable.
As I mentioned previously, if you asked me a few years ago I’d have said this could never happen. I’d thought if people were smart enough to develop a true AI then they’d be smart enough to include an “off switch”. Now I’m not so sure. A small community are developing decentralised networks (not just SAFE) that cannot be turned off. What’s to stop another small community in a few decades independently deploying an AI into such networks?
This I fear is a mantra that’s been repeated so much everyone believes it. If you live somewhere like North Korea, China, etc. then you’ve got a point. Otherwise what freedoms are you being denied currently (not imagined future possibilities)?
Platforms like OpenBazaar are claiming the same type of thing but I don’t understand it. Their USP’s are pretty much anonymity and they don’t take a fee. I’d prefer to transfer funds to someone who isn’t anonymous and anonymity has no bearing on whether they take a fee or not. Unless I’m buying something illegal why should I care if I’m anonymous or not?
Not really true — there are lots of things that are illegal in the US… If you are openly communicating about such matters you are risking your freedom. You may say, yes but those laws are legitimate laws and ought to be enforced with threat of imprisonment etc… But why this and not that? Drugs for certain are punished… But what if you have an undocumented cousin staying with some relatives?? Is it your responsibility to nark them out? If you don’t you might be breaking some laws… What if you want to make your own moonshine? Yep, it’s illegal. Grow your own Tabbacco? Illegal. Install a new sink from home depot? If you don’t have the right paperwork, in some juristictions that is illegal.
You can think we are free, but we are only as free as the government allows us to be… and tommorow, that might not be what it is today.
On the matter of AI, I just don’t have much to work with on that, so can’t factor it at the moment. Something to consider. But even so, I don’t see the SAFE Network seems a greater risk than a permeable network as it’s going forward now.
On the point of freedoms:
to travel unmolested,
to be secure in personal affairs
to be private
to be uncoerced as to whether I support, or not, state sponsored terrorism, military adventurism, murder, etc., done in my name and on my dime.
to chose where, and even if, to bestow my charity for the good of society, rather than to be robbed or extorted, or have my children put into debt for generations for the sake of “public services” which predominately cause far more harm than good, and are used as political tools more than for anyone’s good.
etc. in the same vein.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not squawking about how horrible my life is. I’m blessed to have the time and facility to think these thoughts and study and communicate, and not be toiling on the bare edge of survival. I’d say you and I are both lucky that way. There are a lot of reasons why we are so fortunate, but it’s not because of the lack of those un-freedoms listed above.
does it really matter that we are the lucky ones right now …? do you really claim we have to become the next north korea to be allowed to help them/prevent something like that happening to us …?
(and like @fergish and @jreighley i am very sure we are pretty far from being free … just look at TTIP we never voted for anybody debating there our future ; )
an AI would cost safecoins to run … so if people stop paying for it it simply would stop … not that scary to me at all …
…it would be way more scary running outside of MS
Yeah we call these corporations and government spying. Have you not heard of Facebook? And pretty much every big corporate piece of software works like this. The problem here is that situations are dynamic. Not all situations run according to the program. Anyone who has ever dialed a tech support or customer support number and got a robot answering machine telling them to dial a series of god awful numbers only to wind up with no option that fits their situation OR a dead phone line that doesn’t support their area (or similar) knows this. At some point you just want to talk to a human being.
Yes getting rid of beaurocracies would be great but replacing them with answering machines and malfunctioning websites isn’t much better. Also there is one’s privacy to consider. Often by using these gov’t websites and services you are giving them a whole lot of your personal information, your physical description, age, medical info, location, income specs, etc etc. Nevermind you’re giving them a, and possibly THE password you use in order to sign into their site.
Yeah but that would mean you’d have to fire all those politicians and beaurocrats (good idea) so no one would vote for such an idea. Second you can’t bribe a piece of code. Third what do you do when you have a seriously heinous piece of code/law passed? Finally how do you apply all this in the real world where code does not apply? Oh and if we’re using code WHY are we even bothering with government in the first place? Anyone can write code. Why are we using the government’s code and set of rules?
If the code is bad, then you pass different code. It would be as easy as getting the Blockchain maximum block sized changed.
On some issues legislators might want to leave bribery on the table, but on other issue they certainly would not. Different parties may battle for algorithms here and none there… In many cases you may be able to get more rules passed if the parties where confident the rules couldn’t be easily mutated and manipulated and executive ordered into doing other than the intent…
I am spending my day listening to programmers debate interpretations of California’s new Sick time reporting requirements. If they just passed an API instead of a policy it would greatly simplify things.
I am sure that corporate rules are moving this way already.
Are you really trying to boil down human interaction and the decisions necessary to have mutually acceptable ones to “tested code” that politicians give the force of law?
Well if someone refuses to bend or break the law they’re basically just following a bit of code anyway. And shouldn’t any judgements and decision making be left up to the end user? Using “tested code” is basically just replacing brainwashed people with computer code.
Why? Take the minimum wage law for example as you’ve pointed out, easily written into code. You could set the minimum wage to $0.01. People would be outraged but hey that’s great for business. So you pass he super minimum wage. Elites cheer. Now what’s the remedy for getting an update to the law so people can make decent wages?
So what we replace laws with programs? But why would someone run a government program instead of someone else’s?
Corporations and government are the same thing. A ruling body is a ruling body. Government, corporations, the mafia, all are forms of authority and amount o the same thing. So my question still stands why should I use the gov’ts code, or Ultra Inc. or Little Fast Fingers working for the mob’s code when I can get an open source version that does what I want and is in line with my belief system?
The whole problem with this subject is not algorithms, its legislation.
Legislation is a different ritual for passing a royal edict. That it is ostensibly based upon “representatives” of “the people” doesn’t in any way change the fact that it is arbitrary. Therefore any algorithm put into effect by legislation is likewise arbitrary. Some are less onerous than others, but it still boils down to the arbitrary application of force to an opinion.
The only reason to put interpretation or enforcement off to an algorithm is because the action would be corruptible. Usually when corruption is likely it’s because an undue privilege is involved–like the privilege to apply force to enforce an opinion.
Imagine uniform enforcement in the “drug war”. Oops. Not hard to imagine; think “minimum sentencing guidelines.” What success has been achieved in reforming THAT algorithm. USA has the highest of percentage of prison population in the world and almost the highest in absolute numbers, most of whom are not there for violent crimes. The huge majority are a direct result of the “drug war” and similar destructive nonsense. Creates a great industry, that particular algorithm, but doesn’t result in justice or sanity.
Now imagine such an atrocity being played out even more algorithmically.
It’s the rulership part that is in error in this whole concept, not the algorithm. And legislation IS rulership. Sometimes its sensible and those rules tend to result in decent order without a sense of oppression. Often they warp human action and behavior, and go very wrong. The sensible ones work because they are sensible and most people agree and tend to follow them willingly, not because they are legislation but because the ARE sensible. Unsensible ones, even if they seem sensible when passed, run into problems and CAUSE problems, and they have to be enforced much more heavily because people don’t feel a moral imperative to insist others follow the laws, whether they do themselves or not.
Anyway, I could go on at more length, but I hope my point comes across.
No. Just in many cases there may be laws that are better implemented in code than in policy. I am not saying everywhere or every law… In many cases it would make sense, in many cases it wouldn’t . But there are a lot of cases where there would be some pretty big advantages…
If you’re empathizing with someone you don’t need the law and if you’re not you won’t follow it anyway. If the law is the source of good behavour then why do people do good things even if there is no law to make them? More to the point if the law is what keeps evil at bay then why is it people do good works DESPITE the law even when it’s illegal? For example buying food for the homeless even when it’s made illegal.
Just a small point: you write as if the law has no influence on behaviour, on people’s willingness to do good, or to not do bad?
Surely law influences us. In part because most people choose to abide by it most, if not all, of the time. People do this for many reasons, because they like to conform, or see it as a two way street (protection as well as restriction), or because it expresses the aspirations they share (equality for example) etc etc
From ancient Greece to the wild west, communities of people established these systems for mutual benefit, not just for abuse and control. All systems, technologies, tools, come with the ability to be used well or abused. Law is no different. It’s not good or bad per se, it’s people that make it one or the other, and each situation is different.
