Thoughts on "Verified Badges for Everyone?"

by John C.

In response to the article that appeared in 38:2:

The first two thirds of the article is probably supposed to be "describe the problem," but is mostly trying to convince the reader to "be afraid, be very afraid," supplying a few examples to bolster the argument without any serious statistical facts.

This is not to minimize that there definitely is a problem that should be addressed.  It is to point out the scope of the problem is probably far less than implied and that scope directly bears upon the ability to get people to buy into any attempted solution.  Whether it should or not, that bad things are happening to even a few million people just doesn't serve to rile up the rest of the seven billion people on the planet.

While the article makes the case the problem is global, the solution offered is only even possible in the USA.  Even if implemented, such a local solution to a global problem would probably have dubious success at best.  Similarly the solution offered ignores several personal freedom, personal privacy, and Constitutional issues and so would be unlikely to get past the American legislative/judicial processes that would be necessary to complete before implementation.

I'd offer that a critical factor not really addressed in the article is that a global problem without a working/workable global mechanism to implement any solution probably will never be a reality (e.g., bad guys in the Eastern Bloc doing bad things to people in the USA outside any common legal system).  This also ignores the myriad players involved, each with their own personal agenda and ability to hamper/stall/kill the process.

That said, I'd offer some comments on more fundamental issues that seem to frequently be ignored (especially in technical groups).  First, technology does not operate within a vacuum but within cultural and personal matrices.  For all its vaunted power, technology is still only an enabler, not a prime cause.

Second, the other fellow is not you with a different face and probably has very different ideas on what is right or wrong, allowable or not allowable, good or bad, and so forth.  To be able to actually implement a solution must take these differences into account.

One of the most important trends in America over the last several years has been a significant shift in people's willingness to accept "might makes right."  Historically and globally, might makes right has been the prevalent stance in most, if not almost all, of the world.  One of the main reasons America has been a shining light to the rest of the world has been our adherence to the idea that might should be used for right, rather than might makes right.

In a might makes right world, there is no morality.  Anything one can do is morally justified simply because one can do it.  This path leads to a world where there are only predators and prey.  Predators simply don't care about the damage they do to prey, whether written small as in bilking money out of a person trying to get a job or written large by the actions of governments or mega-corporations.  (This is also a basic question for the hacker community.  Although the community wants to say they believe in might for right, I'd offer the motivational reality is a bit less pristine.  Many begin with might for right only to wind up with a "by any means necessary" view [which is simply another way to phrase might makes right.])

We have seen so many examples of the might makes right mentality in the news over the last several years at all levels that I don't feel it's necessary to enumerate them.

Two issues that are a consequence of this shift are:

1.)  Our best minds have spent the last several decades specifically developing ways to use technology to enable the few to subjugate the many (make folks do what I want them to do because what I want is right or, at least, in my best interest) in every way conceivable  .Whether to make a buck, gain/exploit power or "with the best of intentions" (as within the article being reviewed).

2.)  In America we seem to have lost the ability to agree on, or even discuss, what "right" means.  Thus, might for right is becoming an empty phrase operationally, leaving might makes right the only viable choice.

I'd offer that technology may affect the speed and pervasiveness of these changes of heart but in and of itself does not initiate them.  People must first think it is appropriate and right to cyberbully, traffic in women, or bilk people of their life savings before technology comes into play.

Similarly, social platforms, regardless of rhetoric, must believe it is to their benefit to enable such actions to occur or they would be making different decisions.  Thus, technological answers to these issues will mostly miss the point.

This is another example of user error.