Ah, that makes a lot more sense.
I would say that the way to prevent abuse would be to put a completely flawless and uncorruptable being in power, but as no such being exists, that is impossible.
@reC might choose to disagree but as far as I know He is not stepping up for a backdoor key escrow role. 
1 Like
yup the people tried that 2 millennia ago and HE chose to be crucified rather than play the role you suggested ⌠which makes you ask the question ? if HE turned it down why are some people so eager to step in HIS shoes ?
2 Likes
i think thatâs rather a question of how fluid that dynamic gets ⌠itâs either so or in reverse âŚ
1 Like
lol. the FBI uses a hidden backdoor to log in as root of the 4 bilion-th computer on the planet : âhey look a secret 8TB partition full of pirated material ⌠yup thereâs surely more where that came from ⌠okay letâs do it âŚâ
later that evening ⌠a door ⌠somewhere ⌠getâs kicked in by the anti-copyright-brigade ⌠
In regard to your answer.
As soon as I saw the title I thought: âIsnât this the wrong question?â
Obviously we reached a state where we can only uphold order (how ever this is defined or means) by intruding on private matters (or make money that is which leads to power).
Iâd rather ask what can we do to have a live where privacy is not a privilege but granted and still have a working society.
But this needs rather a overhaul of our system. Economical and Social.
careful every three letter agency on the planet is sensitive to key-words like âoverhaulâ ⌠microwave-canon stand-by ⌠
âŚAnd since some countries have nukes (and wonât give them up w/o a fight), the only solution is for all countries have nukes.
Ron Paul made this argument ages ago.
1 Like
Why?!
What do you have to hide?!
If you donât have anything to hide, then you wonât mind letting us keep microphones and cameras in every room of your home, also your car, and turn your phone into a surveillance device 24/7/365⌠Right?
This is what the Stasi effectively had in East Germany. Itâs probably in your interest to familiarize yourself with them, and especially how life was under them. In the long run, it wasnât sustainable.
I hope that above helps to deepen your understanding as to why privacy should never be relinquished.
agreed it wasnât sustainable back THEN (with the current tech and methodologies of the time) but now global surveillance is so sophisticated that it might as well BE sustainable if we donât wake up âŚ
The US had nukes before any other country had them. For decades, we were the only country to have nukes. If it were in our scope of interest to take over other countries using nuclear weapons, we would have done it then. Our constitution, stated values, and statutes prohibit that. Many other countries are not so noble. With this in mind, the US is the only country that should have nukes. There is no reason what-so-ever, for other countries to have them, other than to use them for conquest. We canât stop several other countries who already have them from having them. But we can do our best to stop as many other countries as is possible from ever getting them. Several movies have themes where the hero tosses a gun or a sword to the bad guy before they start fighting, just to keep it fair. Those are foolish values. You canât live on a level playing field with people who teach things like âdeath to Americaâ to their children. The bad guys are bad guys because they want to bring you harm. You should never give them a âfairâ chance to destroy you. Giving every country nukes or allowing them to have them is an extremely stupid (utopian) idea that assumes that everyone has the same values that you do. The only way to keep the peace is to maintain a distinctive advantage over them. If they want equality, all they need to do is stop oppressing their own populations, grow their economy by creating markets, and treat us with the respect they want in return. There is no valid reason for them to have nukes. Likewise, it would be good if governments with all free citizens can maintain a surveillance over the communications of oppressive governments. It goes only one way. You donât oppress them but you need to keep them in-check.
1 Like
The United Statesâ first successful test was in 1945. - https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-atomic-bomb-test-is-successfully-exploded
The Soviet Union conducted their first successful nuclear weapon test in 1949. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1
So we were ahead by about 4 years. Not quite decades.
The United KIngdomâs first successful test was in 1952. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom
This is 7 years after our first successful test.
France was 1960 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Israel is rumored to be 1963 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
China was 1964 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
I completely agree that countries should work together to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
It should be pointed out that the United States is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. More recently, we just turned Libya into a failed state, no nukes necessary. I love my country, but I wish we wouldnât âpull the triggerâ so readily.
3 Likes
Everyone has the moral high ground from their vantage point.
How did we go from how much privacy should we expect from our phones to nuclear proliferation? This tangent amuses me so.
4 Likes
global mass surveillance is the equivalent to HAVING nuclear weapons ⌠but what would be using that against foreign infrastructure ? 
i think weâve seen it on different occasions but at a reduced level âŚ
personally i would NOT want MY country to have nuclear weapons nor to use them but thatâs probably NEVER going to happen (thank GOD !)
We did, we just used covert and financial means to do so. See: âConfessions of an Economic Hit Manâ.
The reason is to prevent other countries from conquering them, see: Russia, China, North Korea, England, France, Israel, etc.
You are conflating FICTION with nation state diplomacy/game theory. That is incredibly dishonest argumentation. Stop being dishonest and start being honest. Also, stop ignoring the abuses of our American Empire & pretending weâve been some sort of force for good since the Cold War ended.
The USA has been more aggressive and murdered more people than any other nation by orders of magnitude in the last 40 years, and arguably the last 70. See: âWar is a Racketâ written by US general Smedley Butler.
3 Likes
It wasnât sustainable b/c too many people were involved in spying, and people being spied on 24/7 arenât productive enough to sustain a high-level society (you spend too much time watching your ass, and youâre not inspired to be productive because you spend your day in a state of constant low-to-high level hatred of your jailers).
1 Like
yeah iâm sure people in the Apple-store are SO watching their ass ⌠they are lucky if they know what the spy-brick in their pocket does âŚ
Not even close. Communism has averaged 10 million dead/decade over the last century. (Satter â âAge of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Unionâ).
3 Likes
Nukes are good, but SDI-style missile defense (photons!) is essential. Not sure what the photon analogy is for cyberspace, however.