Which is to say that they will become more authoritarian and aggressive? That's not a good reason to be unhappy that they can no longer hack shit. They shouldn't do that either.

▲

ameliaquining 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The trouble is, sometimes governments do things that they shouldn't do.

▲

kulahan 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are lots of things governments should and shouldn’t do, but unfortunately we don’t live in a vacuum, and need to consider the consequences of actions, rather than simply hope everyone is somehow forced to react the way we expect and desire.

In a nutshell, what I’m saying is “They shouldn’t do either” is at best a platitude and at worst a distraction preventing critical thought.

	▲	colordrops 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So our strategy should be to shut down AI so it leaves vulnerabilities everywhere? Not sure what you are saying. Fixing security bugs across the world's software isn't some single policy action that we can vote on. Governments should behave. I know they don't, but they should, and the population should do everything in their power to force them to. What other choice do we have? Please demonstrate your powerful faculty of critical thought and explain what we should do instead.

▲

donkey_brains 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nope. The article’s assertion is that governments will start to put enormous pressure on tech companies in their borders to include backdoors in their systems for LEO use. This in turn may lead to “nationalized” software e.g. what Russia and China largely do now, but in many more countries. You may have no choice but to use phones, computers, and software that is backdoored by your government - everything else will be illegal.

	▲	abruzzi 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think "nope" is in reference to "hacking" system. The point of the article is that hacking by software vendors that sell to law enforcement was a pressure relief valve that deflated the movement that the FBI was pushing at the time to have Apple (and others) build backdoors into their systems. If the phones could be hacked, and backdoors were not necessary the FBI could back off and still get what they want. If the FBI can't get what they want, they can either pressure the companies like Apple, or they can pressure congress to make laws requiring this. The phone makers could stand on principle, go to court, but the courts in the US are not very tech savvy, and usually deferential to law enforcement. Other countries may be better than the US, but some are definitely going to be worse. So is a backdoor worse than a security vulnerability? I don't know but that is what this article is about.
	▲	iamnothere 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It sounds like we should be gearing up for that fight then, so we can win it.
	▲	colordrops 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What do you mean "Nope", you mean "Yep" right? What you are describing is precisely "more authoritarian and aggressive"

▲

lelandbatey 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Read the article. That's what the article says.

> Thus: over the next two years, major pieces of software are likely to run out of remotely-exploitable bugs.

> While I think this is great, for law enforcement and offensive intelligence agencies, it’s going to be a nightmare.

> So what do we do about it? I honestly have no idea. [...] it’s just occurring to me that we’re on a long greasy slide to a place that will look different than where we are today. [We’re] just going to have to hope that this time we make the right choices.