At the same time, take something like the Dell database that was just stolen, and criminals starting to do their criminal crimes. Then I want courts to be able to flip a switch and say, you know what, if you're brazenly stealing a private company's database and calling its customers trying to defraud them, at some point there is some probable cause to make you stop doing that or figure out who you are. You're not just going to stay anonymous behind a skype number while you're defrauding people halfway across the world.
Also I don't want some bitcoin asshole to pay off an old soviet general and get a nuclear bomb, just because they think it would be a fun troll to blow up a major city, trololo.
These aren't theoretical concerns - ransomware, kidnapping, all these yucky things that civilized societies don't have, all happen absent rule of law.
There's a reason there wasn't a period in the Constitution (specifically the fourth amendment) after the words "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects shall not be violated." (Extra points for what is there.)
Even absent an anonymous Internet, way back in the eighteenth century, there were limits on privacy. Think of it like an operating system - a good kernel isn't reading my memory contents and slowing me down, but if I start performing illegal operations I might very well get shut down :)
It's not an easy line to find. Also, I don't want tens of thousands of people employed doing this crap. It's a minimal thing we need to live safely and sanely, not some fun snooping. Frankly I don't see why humans even need to be involved, until crimes start getting committed and the courts are trying to figure out why or where.
But you also don't want anyone else to flip the switch, or it being flipped for any other purpose. That might just be impossible. So you might be better of without the switch.
> You're not just going to stay anonymous behind a skype number while you're defrauding people halfway across the world.
Also, for this problem, as for many others, there are many possible solutions that don't involve surveillance.
> Also I don't want some bitcoin asshole to pay off an old soviet general and get a nuclear bomb, just because they think it would be a fun troll to blow up a major city, trololo.
So, you would prefer them to use USD cash instead, then?
> These aren't theoretical concerns - ransomware, kidnapping, all these yucky things that civilized societies don't have, all happen absent rule of law.
Except they very much do happen in "civilized societies". And sometimes with the help of the powers of authorities.
> It's not an easy line to find.
No. But it's quite easy to see that the direction we are heading is completely at the wrong end of the spectrum.
> a good kernel isn't reading my memory contents and slowing me down, but if I start performing illegal operations I might very well get shut down :)
Which is very much the opposite of mass surveillance.
> Frankly I don't see why humans even need to be involved,
Humans who see the potential of the collected data will get involved. People who want to abuse power don't usually wait until someone gives them permission to.