> even under Stalin

To be fair, Stalin had a habit of just killing people instead of sending them to the Gulag. Not that it excuses the US incarceration rate but your comparison isn't very good.

It was intended to be offensive. Although, the actual numbers are quite disputed and most of the ones we hear should be considered propaganda. Besides which; we're hardly ones to point the finger over genocide these days (Iraq, Pakistan, all those Afghan wedding parties).

Yeah, but Stalin also had 700,000 people shot in 2 years, so it doesn't work amazingly.

A more important point is that you must be pragmatic about such things. If you install a dead man's switch to your computer, you must realise that no matter how morally correct you are, in many countries it's very possible that you'll go to prison if the computer is seized in a useless state (for example, in Britain you'll be on the hook for up to 2 years in jail). In many cases, that'll be professional suicide.

So unless you have something to hide that's worth more than that jailtime, this software actually is a hindrance. I think the comment about militarisation and torture is really besides the point - it's clearly unrelated to the issue at hand.

> There is a distinction between crime and acts that are morally wrong. For instance hiding Jews from the Nazis would be a crime from the Nazis point of view. But most anyone else would consider it to be the right thing to do.

You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment.

> You should question whether or not your government is legitimate enough to be trusted in matters criminal and judicial.

But it's very hard to opt out of the system. Personally, I won't intentionally do things that could make life harder on myself and others without first knowing some details. I think it's a bad idea to set up a dead man's switch without first knowing what kind of investigation might trigger it. It would be sad to face charges for destruction of evidence due to accidentally triggering the switch for something silly.

> You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment.

Is that supposed to be a reason not to do it?

You lose rights you don't exercise and it makes vulnerable populations stand out more when they're the only ones trying to protect themselves.

The thing about corrupt law enforcement is that, like other forms of crime, their victims are a large number of people but a small percentage of people. You are not likely to be one of them. But if everybody, especially the innocent, takes practical defensive measures then taking defensive measures is no longer evidence of anything. It's like encouraging people to use Tor to check sports scores and read Wikipedia.

And because you're innocent, whatever legal consequences may currently be the result of defending yourself are irrelevant to you with high probability because they only come into play if you are already a target. And since that is very unlikely to occur, and if it does you're basically already screwed anyway, discouraging people from doing something that allows the innocent actual targets to claim a stronger defense is probably not in the public interest.

> > You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment.

> Is that supposed to be a reason not to do it?

Not really. It's meant to be a "be sure you know what you're getting into" warning.

> But if everybody, especially the innocent, takes practical defensive measures then taking defensive measures is no longer evidence of anything. It's like encouraging people to use Tor to check sports scores and read Wikipedia.

Considering Tor: I'm perfectly OK recommending people check sports scores and read Wikipedia through Tor in the US or other Western countries; but I would feel irresponsible giving that advice to people in, say, North Korea or Iran.

> And because you're innocent, whatever legal consequences may currently be the result of defending yourself are irrelevant to you with high probability because they only come into play if you are already a target. And since that is very unlikely to occur, and if it does you're basically already screwed anyway, discouraging people from doing something that allows the innocent actual targets to claim a stronger defense is probably not in the public interest.

Remember, in criminal law, there has to be an illegal act and a state of mind (the person acted willfully, recklessly, negligently, etc.). The state of mind is nearly impossible to prove with a confession, so it's generally proven by the circumstances: given that the person was under investigation, is it more likely that they destroyed evidence (1) to hinder that investigation, or (2) as a form of civil disobedience and they were unlucky in that they hadn't realized they were under investigation? Of course, in US criminal law, the question is "do you believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person destroyed evidence in an effort to interfere with the investigation?" But once proof that the person was being investigated is used to imply their state of mind, the fact that the accused went through a lot of trouble to set up a dead man's switch is going to look sinister; even if there are activists in the world -- who are not under investigation -- going through the same trouble to set up similar systems.

Civil disobedience is admirable, but it's easy to forget that civil disobedience is most effective when people are severely punished for standing on their morals, especially when the punishments are extra-judicial (unnecessarily rough arrests, paperwork snafus with real world consequences, difficulty getting medication ( http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/12/28/casual-cruetly/ ), etc.). We recently celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the US. According to the Letter From Birmingham Jail ( http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... ), King made sure to tell protestors that they could be beaten and jailed for their protests ("We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: 'Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?' 'Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?'"). It's admirable that people took him up on the offer, but it's very important that people know what they're signing up for.

> Considering Tor: I'm perfectly OK recommending people check sports scores and read Wikipedia through Tor in the US or other Western countries; but I would feel irresponsible giving that advice to people in, say, North Korea or Iran.

Shouldn't it feel more uncomfortable than this casting the US into a comparison with North Korea and Iran? It seems like it should feel more uncomfortable than this.

But let's see if we can at least distinguish them a little so we can at least pretend. Using Tor is (presumably) illegal in itself in North Korea and Iran. Having your computer set up to delete data in the event of a home invasion isn't, to my knowledge, illegal in the US. You aren't guilty of destroying evidence of a crime if the thing you destroyed was not evidence of a crime.

The concern is presumably that it would look like destroying evidence of a crime, and that you might be prosecuted or falsely convicted for that even though it isn't what you did. But if you haven't committed any serious crime then the probability of a police raid against you is (hopefully) very low, which is the only apparent circumstance where it becomes an issue. Moreover, the more innocent people who have such a thing set up, the less prosecutors are able to argue that only the guilty would do it. Having innocent people do it is the only way to allow the argument that someone doing it is innocent.

> Civil disobedience is admirable, but it's easy to forget that civil disobedience is most effective when people are severely punished for standing on their morals, especially when the punishments are extra-judicial (unnecessarily rough arrests, paperwork snafus with real world consequences, difficulty getting medication ( http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/12/28/casual-cruetly/ ), etc.).

I don't think I can agree with that. Civil disobedience is most effective when people are unjustly and publicly harmed but not destroyed. MLK was in the Birmingham jail for eight days. Being beaten by the police while offering no resistance or being jailed for a matter of days is exactly what you want, because the next day the victim is standing behind a podium in front of a thousand people decrying the obvious injustice and demonstrating that their resolve holds.

Which is why the police don't do those things anymore. Today you don't get beaten, you get shot and killed. You don't go to jail for a few days only to be released into a community that rallies behind you, you get prosecuted for years until your entire family is bankrupt and then go to prison until your ties to your community are severed. Can you even name a US civil rights leader who is under 40 and has been incarcerated? An obvious example might have been Aaron Swartz. Or Manning, or Snowden. But those people can't exactly lead a march on Washington now, can they?

We need a different tack. And something that could conceivably work is for as many people as possible to interfere with the ability of malicious government officials to persecute citizens who do the right thing, by doing things that aren't strictly illegal, like operating Tor nodes and using encryption and so on. And yes, that means some risk that a prosecutor somewhere is going to step way over the line and make somebody's life hard who wasn't doing anything wrong. But that isn't the tone of your previous post. There is a big difference between "there is a chance this could go badly, are you in?" and "I wouldn't do that if I were you."

We're clearly not making any progress, so I'll boil down my objections and leave it at that. My biggest problem with the original article is simply that it doesn't mention that setting up a dead man's switch could expose somebody to a legitimate charge of destruction of evidence or contempt of court. That seems like an important detail.

I'll accept your argument that there may be valid reasons for innocent people to set up a dead man's switch, but even so it's irresponsible to tell people "look at this cool thing you can do" without mentioning that doing it could -- in some circumstances -- lead to jail time and legal bills.

Yes, if I set up a dead man's switch and am never investigated, it will never be triggered, and I will never face charges because of it. But then the police will never know that the thing existed, so they would have no reason to believe that lots of innocent people are using dead man's switches for legitimate purposes.

I would still insist on a disclaimer if the advice only increased the chance somebody would be charged with a crime, even if it were impossible to be convicted. I don't believe everything should carry a disclaimer, but I do believe that if I'm aware of a nonobvious risk, I should mention it.

Years ago, I was a teller for BB&T bank. When the economy started slowing down in early 2001, and our competitors announced layoffs, the CEO sent out a memo stating that BB&T didn't plan any layoffs and that the CEO thought the company had a bright future. As proof of that bright future, he mentioned that he was "fully vested" in the company, i.e., his only investments were cash and BB&T stock, and he swore that he would not sell his stock because a captain has a duty to go down with the ship. It's certainly legal to put all of your investments in one company, but it's generally considered a risky move, so the CEO also included a disclaimer that he wasn't suggesting we put all of our money in BB&T stock. But he wanted us to know that he either sincerely believed in the company, or was willing to risk a fortune pretending to.

> > Considering Tor: I'm perfectly OK recommending people check sports scores and read Wikipedia through Tor in the US or other Western countries; but I would feel irresponsible giving that advice to people in, say, North Korea or Iran.

> Shouldn't it feel more uncomfortable than this casting the US into a comparison with North Korea and Iran? It seems like it should feel more uncomfortable than this.

I'm feeling the smugness, but I'm not able to figure out the logic behind it. My complaint with the original article is that it gives advice without mentioning the consequences for following that advice. My list of things that should include disclaimers is based on my understanding of US law and the potential consequences of using Tor, secure HTTP connections, encrypted email, etc. It seems obvious to me that the list of things that should include disclaimers under various legal regimes will be influenced by the consequences of taking those actions in those regimes. Indeed, mentioning that the consequences of using Tor, encrypted email, etc. are different in the US than in North Korea (or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Cuba, depending on who's on the other end of the connection) seems to me to be a compliment to the US.