this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
372 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59327 readers
6977 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm quite familiar with it.
But think of it this way. The majority is often poorly informed and will likely agree to some group making decisions on their behalf. That group is not necessarily subject to the will of the people and instead operates in its own bureaucracy where "security" is preferred over other priorities the people may have. Look at the TSA, they have been blinded by a pursuit of the appearance of security that they have gone well past the effective controls necessary to provide reasonable security to likely threats (e.g. bullet proof cockpit doors), and have failed to actually prevent things their tools are designed to detect.
The majority want safety, and a government agency wants to maintain relevance. Solving the problem by granting the government more power will devolve into the agency looking for more reasons to stay relevant and keep its funding. There's plenty of examples of that, so it's not an unfounded slippery slope argument.
So instead of the majority blindly handing over their responsibilities to a third party, we should instead teach the majority to avoid the worst of it. And then we can use the agencies we already have to gather information about potential threats and shut them down through other means (e.g. instead of banning potentially harmful apps, they could sue the app makers for actual damages).
but that’s just the point, isn’t it? There are no means of obtaining compensation from an adversarial state or its companies and the damage caused might be irreparable. The discussion is not about countries that US has strong ties with. This is foreign policy. And just like your fundamental US granted rights are not guaranteed outside the US borders, nor should adversaries enjoy the same rights in the US. Since the country in question, Russia, makes no commitment to observing any US laws and since there is no way of coercing it or punishing it when it doesn’t, why should US citizens be exposed to this?
And by the way, I think there’s another piece of info that you’re missing. Software bans are not the same as other bans. Banning Kaspersky, for example, just means that the company cannot officially trade and advertise their products in the US. But there is no way of preventing users from using those products(unfortunately).
If they do business here, they are subject to our laws. TikTok, for example, does have an entity here, so they would be subject to our laws. I don't know about Kaspersky though.
Because they choose to. Restricting that is a restriction on US citizens' freedom of association.
It goes further than that, it also restricts companies like Google and Apple from including them in their app stores. And for something like Apple, that effectively means users cannot install the app on their device because Apple does not allow other app stores.
I may reconsider if there were no practical limits on what users can do with their devices. Any restrictions should purely be on the companies offering the service, and it should never be illegal for me to use a given piece of software, even if it's on the government's "do not trade" list or whatever. What I do with that software may be illegal, but merely possessing and using it without violating other laws should never be illegal.
I also don't think it should be illegal for any app store to distribute and process payment for a given piece of software, though perhaps it could be illegal to promote it. Otherwise, that's a restriction on the freedom of the app store as well.