• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    immediate danger to society

    But what exactly is the definition of that?

    For example, which of these meet that definition:

    • an antivirus that ignores viruses from the county of origin
    • a social media app that collects data from a device and sends it home
    • a social media app that likely promotes content with a specific political agenda the government doesn’t like
    • an app that hides monetary transaction details, which is commonly used by terrorists and other criminals
    • a social media app that doesn’t id users and allows criminals to use it to communicate

    The first two are probably the initial targets, but a law enforcement agency could make a decent case for the rest. Where does it stop?

    That’s why I think we need a hard limit on government authority here. It’s better for some bad stuff to propagate than for the scope of what’s blocked to expand and effectively limit freedoms of speech, association, press, etc.

    Government have a lot of tools at their disposal, I honestly don’t think banning software needs to be one of them.

    • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      There is no way you of knowing what closed software does, especially software such as Kaspersky. Any piece of software can act as a backdoor for total control of all your devices and network. And when that software has the power of a state like Russia or China behind it, it can gain access to all sorts of secrets it shouldn’t have access to and can be used to corrupt people, compromise entire corporate level security systems and entire state level security systems.

      Government have a lot of tools at their disposal, I honestly don’t think banning software needs to be one of them.

      I really don’t understand why this is where you think the line should be drawn. Countries routinely decide to stop trading with various other countries for multiple reasons. For example, Russia is already under an embargo, why should software of all things be left free. Software is one of the least controllable goods that can be traded across borders.

      effectively limit freedoms of speech, association, press, etc.

      Since when do you have the freedom to associate with non-US citizens? Do you even understand what this is about!

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        There is no way you of knowing what closed software does

        Sure, and that’s why I very much prefer FOSS and avoid nonsense like Kaspersky. I also actively tell everyone I know to prefer FOSS.

        Countries routinely decide to stop trading with various other countries for multiple reasons

        I’m also against that, generally speaking. I think open trade promotes freedom and therefore democracy, and blocking trade just encourages more authoritarianism. I have yet to see a case where it actually impacts the leadership enough to matter, especially when it comes to larger countries like Russia.

        Since when do you have the freedom to associate with non-US citizens?

        Why wouldn’t I? If they have the freedom to associate with me, I should have the freedom to associate with them.

        • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Why wouldn’t I? If they have the freedom to associate with me, I should have the freedom to associate with them.

          That’s a very very big “if” considering US’ foreign policy. An “if” that translates to you not actually having this freedom.

          I very much prefer FOSS and avoid nonsense like Kaspersky. I also actively tell everyone I know to prefer FOSS.

          How noble of you, but what do you suggest we do about people who aren’t reached by your words of wisdom?

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            An “if” that translates to you not actually having this freedom.

            I’m not sure what your point is. Someone not having the freedom to associate with me doesn’t limit my freedom of association. Someone else being locked away in jail doesn’t mean I’m in jail just because I can’t freely associate with them.

            We should be pushing to remove barriers to association, not responding in kind. And yes, that includes changing our foreign policy.

            what do you suggest

            As I mentioned, the government should raise awareness around the issues of proprietary software, especially software originating from adversarial countries. Don’t raise FUD, but instead fund research into these software products. Get researchers onto platforms where they can reach a wide audience, like late night talk shows, popular YouTube and similar channels, etc.

            For individuals, promote and donate to organizations like Mozilla, the EFF, and Proton that push for open software and privacy. Use those services and recommend them to your friends and family.

            If you ban something, you just get the Streisand effect and erode trust. If something is dangerous, the best strategy is to be completely transparent about why and provide information that can be independently verified.

            • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Someone not having the freedom to associate with me doesn’t limit my freedom of association.

              US visas & other things make it so that otherwise free people cannot do business in US or even enter the US. This means that, by definition, your state prevents you from associating with them.

              the government should raise awareness around the issues of proprietary software

              But this doesn’t remove the threat at all. Look at tiktok, governments have been raising awareness about it and flagging it as a national security concern and yet the user count is growing.

              There are things where raising awareness makes sense, e.g. alcohol consumption, smoking, etc. There are other cases where state intervention is required, e.g. working with asbestos, led, mercury, etc. Software falls in the latter category, because, like I said, it’s not just a matter of personal choice. S

              If you ban something, you just get the Streisand effect and erode trust.

              I really doubt that banning Karspersky would have the effect of more people using Kaspersky. That’s silly.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                US visas & other things

                I agree, and I’m absolutely in favor of dramatically relaxing our immigration policy. If I could snap my fingers, I’d double immigration quotas and guarantee visa renewal for anyone here legally who has not been convicted of a crime. I work with some wonderful immigrants, and I think we need more.

                That said, my freedom of association isn’t being limited with poor immigration policy, I can still collaborate with them online, share software with them, etc. The only limitation is physical proximity. That’s an issue, but I don’t see it as an abridgement of my freedom of association in at all the same way as banning software.

                yet the user count is growing

                Then the people have spoken. They prefer whatever that app provides over national security.

                The government should step up the awareness campaign and find legitimate issues to substantiate the guidance to avoid it.

                But I do not consent to the government banning any form of media.

                Software falls in the latter category, because, like I said, it’s not just a matter of personal choice

                What’s special about software? The defense here is proper security practices at all levels. The main risks are:

                • botnets - ISPs should shut that down
                • worms - proper security
                • identity theft - insurance and criminal prosecution

                Honestly, if governments pressured computer vendors to properly sandbox applications, we’d have far fewer problems. That’s where the awareness campaign would do wonders, naming and shaming when vendors cut corners on security.

                I really doubt that banning Karspersky would have the effect of more people using Kaspersky.

                Maybe not, I don’t think people have a real sense of loyalty to their antivirus.

                But I think it could totally be a thing for TikTok.

                • RidcullyTheBrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Then the people have spoken. They prefer whatever that app provides over national security.

                  You should read about the tyranny of majority.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    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).