Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The guiding principle however appears to be "Once untrustworthy, always forbidden". That is an issue.


sort by: page size:

I like the idea, but I'm unwilling to trust it. Why were those restrictions put there in the first place?

The inclusion of the "Gurwinder Principle" casts doubt on the other principles listed.

The problem is they're trying to filter the production of a group of unrelated organizations, without any recognized authority to do so. The vagueness of the principle reflects the intractability of the goal, in the current environment.

This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome.

Agreed that that may be deceptive, but the underlying issue remains. It is prohibited.

Maybe it's one of those things that should not be allowed even if people agree to it.

Probably the reasons for attempting to undermine it are more political than practical or ethical.

It's (to me) clearly non-compliant with its intention. It's now for courts to decide whether that is the case, or for politicians to fix the law to patch this backdoor if there was one. But it will be fixed.

Okay, then I agree with that. And I would add that its non-permissiveness is a big contributor to its disharmonies.

why is that a problem? a well oiled practice for revocation in case of compromise sounds like a good thing to me.

Thank you for laying bare the specifics of this issue. It does seem indefensible.

Yes. Additionally they should design their architecture in such a way that means they are unable to comply.

And this is still quite questionable, we should not be enabling it.

Yeah, I'm having a definition problem with this one too. It appears that what they did was not prohibited by the system. Maybe not the most ethical way to go about things, but not explicitly prohibited.

I think the current policy of allowing them as long as there's a workaround is fine. What do you think is wrong with that?

It’s not a system that holds up to an adversary. It’s at most a semi-voluntary restriction.

Seems unethical but the line between between insider and outsider seems too fuzzy and arbitrary to really enforce such a law consistently, IMHO.

It's against the guidelines to do so.

As explained in the dissent, they literally have to delegate the kind of authority in question here. It’s the hostile-genie problem: you can’t close all the loopholes in some iron-clad unambiguous way in finite space.
next

Legal | privacy