> In November 2019, the young minister of the Cabinet of Ministers, Dmytro Dubilet, proposed...
Thats a classic, you never read that "old and experienced" official propose smartphones. Maybe they know something that young doesn't.
Thats a classic, you never read that "old and experienced" official propose smartphones. Maybe they know something that young doesn't.
Watch any senate/congressional/government hearing about technology related subjects from your country's government and you'll see what I mean.
That chance also increases when they are part of a committee.
That chance also increases when the ‘adversaries’ are tech-moguls trying to push for their version of utopia.
Ultimately, I’m not sure we can realistically accuse most political dinosaurs of just passing time for a couple of decades.
How do you even know they don’t understand, misunderstand, don’t have conflicting agendas or just don’t like an idea? It’s easy to assume, especially when one has never stepped in the backstage of politics.
You were making a good point until you ended up here. The backstage of politics is essentially bribery in it's many legal and not so legal forms.
I would like a bit more context into how you feel my mentioning of backstage of politics, which is indeed how the world is run today, is detrimental to my point that old men have experience in exactly this.
Unless of course you think both are intertwined in a way that cannot be separated. In that case we just disagree.
I guess this also depends where you lead them. Personally I don't consider it a positive quality, I consider it a dangerous quality.
> When you then reduce that expertise to what happens behind closed doors, it (to my mind) becomes explicitly about bribery and corruption.
I'm sure bribery and corruption are a big part of backdoor deals, but I'm sure also some discussions which would be impossible in the public space are taking place. Could you orchestrate a coup towards a hostile regime out in the public? Could you actually state your support of gay people when in a conservative party? There are a lot of things that can't be said in public space, but must be said in private in order to advance society. I feel.
> Perhaps folks with experience have more experience with that as well, but it's not germane to their general competence in dealing with groups of people.
I feel it is. I've seen a new wave of politicians in my country, they rode off on the excitement of the population for a new political force, but once they managed to get an ounce of power, their holier than thou attitude made it impossible to work with them and kinda crashed them in the polls. They are still getting my vote as they're against the status-quo, but damn it I wish they were a bit more 'backroom' in some aspects.
> Unless of course you think both are intertwined in a way that cannot be separated. In that case we just disagree.
This is actually where I stand. I am also considering the historical context of my country where in more totalitarian times, a bit of backroom dealing managed to create some form of space for revolution to happen.
Disagreement is healthy and I thank you for stating your views clearly. I hope I managed to do the same.
Has anyone done some good study / writing on the subject?
I recall, as a young know-it-all, laughing at that one Congress Critter for his "internet is a series of tubes" comment - but as I've gotten older I really just look at most of these things as plumbing data such that I'm not all that sure he was wrong.
Makes me wonder if your assertion is more based on the superficial media takes of the day, and not reality.
Again, it's based on watching hearings and other media released by my government when they are talking about technology.
I'm in no way laughing at them for not understanding something. But I am laughing at those who pretend to understand something, or who simply ignore something because they don't understand it. It's not that hard to find experts in certain subjects, and it's really bad that they don't leverage this more for subjects they don't understand.
He wasn't just comparing bandwidth to plumbing
> an Internet [email] was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
I think the thought that perhaps they've seen a proposed "huge improvement" many times before and need a little bit more than breathless enthusiasm to endorse it has merit.
Dubilet makes some insightful points:
- That having a centralized legacy system creates a single point of vulnerability, unlike peer-to-peer encryption.
- That the app can be installed on a special-issue smartphone to avoid hardware backdoors and risk of compromise from other apps.
- That the status quo (politicians use chat apps anyway for lack of an equally convenient certified option) isn't secure anyway.
"special issue smartphone"? Good luck on that, producing your own smartphone . And you are going to need to produce it to avoid hardware and software backdoors.