You can't fix social problems with technology. The issue here is Brazilian law and the failure to understand the implications of encryption by the courts, not WhatApp's connection architecture.
I assert, and I think many of us here are moved by the notion that, as time moves forward, technological solutions tend to be confounding for entrenched power structures and empowering for social liberation.
I don't really know how to parse "you can't fix social problems with technology," but I have much more confidence in the growing power of, for example, uncensorable media than I do in any fantasy of change in the nature of government.
My sense is that government will be co-opted by the rich to excuse violence against the poor, and that this rule will apply in proportion to the size of the government and the size of the landmass over which it claims dominion. Technology seems to be the cultural foil to this trend.
I think that "you can't fix social problems with technology" is too oversimple and too absolute to have real meaning in the current techno-political environment.
Then let me be more clear; you can't get around laws with technology. You have to change the laws. Proposing to make something peer to peer doesn't address the actual problem, the law.
> As there are countries where laws cannot be changed
No, there aren't.
> technological solutions can fix the problems once and for all
No, they can't. Oppression can't be fixed by circumventing the law as it just leaves the government more power to enable selective enforcement which is the ideal way to scare people into compliance.
There's no such thing as a country whose laws can't be changed. Only countries where the people don't care enough to do what's necessary to change them.
Actually, thinking about it, North Koreans can at least argue that China will intercede in their political and economic affairs to the extent necessary to keep them subjugated. So I'll give you that.
Really? Because Uber and AirBnB seem to be doing a pretty good job of using technology to get around laws.
edit: Actually here is a REALLY easy answer. What about Pirating and Torrenting. Do you really believe that this peer to peer technology hasn't massively helped people get around copyright laws?
This is an increasingly popular meme, and I have some sympathy for the sentiment that we shouldn't ignore the political process, but ultimately it's twaddle - a backlash against the staggering impact that technology has had and will continue to have. Exhibit A: the printing press.
In this case it's even pragmatically untrue. Make a communications platform that's technically impossible to block, and government will not make itself look foolish attempting to block it. Even the US government, who dearly wanted to kill encryption for the masses before it got off the ground in the 90s, was forced to back off after the tide of encryption technology proved un-stemmable.
> Make a communications platform that's technically impossible to block, and government will not make itself look foolish attempting to block it.
Actually that's exactly what they'll do just as they continue to try with DRM. Governments don't care about looking foolish, they care about maintaining power and they will do so even if it requires outlawing said technology.
Very. For the moment, you have to take your salary in your local currency. Therefore, you need an exchange to get Bitcoins, and the exchanges can be shut down.
People said The Great Firewall would never work. They were wrong about that, too.
The real world CAN infringe on the networked world--quite strongly.
Drugs are (highly) illegal but most people I know are at most two phone calls away from scoring whatever they want whenever they want.
I imagine if some third-world countries with capital controls banned Bitcoin, it would look similar (having to call your Bitcoin dealer and pay a markup to move money out of the country but otherwise easily accessible to those in-the-know).
If people's life savings depended on circumventing capital controls, they would find a way. It's already a reality in China [1] and (until recently) Argentina [2].
Hell, where I'm from (Canada) 43% of people admit to having smoked marijuana in their lifetimes. And that's just breaking the law for fun, not serious practical reasons like saving $xx,xxx when your crappy central bank decides to inflate away your bank account.
You're looking at the actions of a very few people and making unjustified sweeping conclusions about what everyone is willing to do. A very small minority of the populations in both those countries are breaking the law to get their money around capital controls, that doesn't in any way challenge the point that most people won't.
Most people break drug laws at some point in their lives just for fun, still not relevant to the fact that most don't most of the time.
Most people obey most laws most of the time, especially ones that can get them into serious trouble. No amount of anecdotes of some people this or some people that changes that fact. Laws matter.
I think you're inverting the causation. Of course things that most people do most of the time would not be illegal, those laws would be very difficult to introduce and sustain politically.
> especially ones that can get them into serious trouble
It's not enough for a law to carry a heavy penalty, people have to believe they can/will get caught and the penalty will apply to them. Which is true for robbery and capital murder but not so with drug use, capital controls, porn bans (click here if you're 18), copyright, etc.
> Laws matter.
Only if someone has the ability, will, and the resources to consistently enforce them. Which is to say, they would not matter in third-world countries with mismanaged economies where people need to break the law to buy BTC/USD.
It's true for drug use as well, but that's not the point. The point is laws do deter, they don't prevent everyone, but they can easily kill mass adoption of anything. You can try to skirt around that all you like, but it's true none the less. Bitcoin is not special in this regard, if the US outlawed it, mass adoption would not be an option. And no, you don't need consistent enforcement of laws to make them intimidating, selective enforcement does that too.
At the rate bitcoin is being used to circumvent capital exports restrictions, there's no need for imagination. Just wait a bit for government to figure it out.
Extremely, believe it or not, most people aren't willing to break the law to use new technology. If the government says something is illegal, that'll kill most usage of it.
