1. 8
  1.  

  2. 11

    Fascinating that GitHub is chosen as a (presumed) shorthand for “decentralized source depository” - i.e. git. Someone should start worried about getting kleenex’d…

    1. 6

      I’m more concerned with a microsoft product becoming synonymous with git. One uses the other, but it is not the other.

      1. 1

        You are pretty late to the party then, as GitHub is already a synonym of git since it literally is the reason why git is as popular as it is today. Also the reason is Microsoft bought it.

      2. 1

        In this context, it makes sense to treat it that way - it’s a major support for decentralized software development, even if the point of distribution is centralized, and it’s the development that counts for the argument. If anyone with the appropriate training can implement a crypto library and distribute it, then what’s a snooping government to do?

      3. 9

        Any politician who wants to do this is either legally stupid, technologically stupid, or some kind of bond villain.

        Unfortunately that’s exactly the kind of people that are currently in charge of everything, so it’s a fair bet they will actually try to get it done.

        1. 7

          Piracy is banned, and GitHub complies with DMCA. If encryption gets banned, GitHub will comply too.

          DRM is nonsense, and yet the government still enforces “effective technological measures”. Similarly, if a 3-letter agency finds your repo is not vulnerable enough, they will make GitHub take it down (or fine them, or raid their offices if they don’t comply).

          1. 3

            The Chinese government has attempted to ban github.

            1. 3

              Kinda misses the point. Consumers don’t care about privacy. If Facebook is compelled to backdoor whatsapp or fb messenger then the users aren’t going to switch to Signal or whatever (and if they did, the gov could compel the app stores to stop carrying unbackdoored encrypted messaging apps).

              Sure, you can still get past that if you’re dedicated, but increasing the friction of a thing is still useful to a state that wants to surveil its populace or collect the communications of unsophisticated criminals.

              The only systematic protection against this kind of thing is a proper democracy and a rejection of alarmism.

              1. 0

                This reminds me so much of the cyber-libertarian claptrap of the mid 90s. Governments can and will find ways to prevent information from spreading, and enact egregiously stupid laws to enforce back-doors, with the help of big corporations like Apple, MS and Google.

                Remember, Galileo was imprisoned for life for describing what anyone could see, just by looking up.

                1. 3

                  I don’t necessarily disagree with your point, but this analogy:

                  Remember, Galileo was imprisoned for life for describing what anyone could see, just by looking up.

                  ..is wrong. Lenses for making refractor telescopes, and the skill to make one, were in super short supply. Galileo was the first to point one up a the sky, the others who could at the time were serving in navies and pointing them at the horizon. Very (very, very) few people could look up in the same way he did when he did.