Yes but they wouldn't have the same resources at their disposal to conduct brute force password cracking nor would they have much incentive to do so. The point is not that passwords would become unnecessary but that we would not have an arms race over information security.
Passwords could still have use, but there would be no incentive for cryptography or the arms race of password security if they were only needed to protect personal private communications.
Yeah what is there to protect in a free open source information economy aside from personal shit that could be easily protected in the absence of a profit motive to steal your shit?
Because people still have a right to privacy??? Even if you make a state with literally not a single bad actor whatsoever no matter how small of a position (lol good luck) other people being noisy assholes isn't going to go away, protecting your accounts for basic privacy seems like a good thing on its own.
Here's an example: Someone takes nudes for only one person or a couple of people. Someone else wants to see them, but doesn't have consent. This person doesn't care about lack of consent. Shouldn't there be a way to keep this person away?
How's that? I hadn't really thought about how capitalism affected computer security.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes but they wouldn't have the same resources at their disposal to conduct brute force password cracking nor would they have much incentive to do so. The point is not that passwords would become unnecessary but that we would not have an arms race over information security.
People have put ridiculous amounts of effort into stalking with no profit incentive in the past, and still do.
deleted by creator
Passwords could still have use, but there would be no incentive for cryptography or the arms race of password security if they were only needed to protect personal private communications.
deleted by creator
Yeah what is there to protect in a free open source information economy aside from personal shit that could be easily protected in the absence of a profit motive to steal your shit?
Because people still have a right to privacy??? Even if you make a state with literally not a single bad actor whatsoever no matter how small of a position (lol good luck) other people being noisy assholes isn't going to go away, protecting your accounts for basic privacy seems like a good thing on its own.
Here's an example: Someone takes nudes for only one person or a couple of people. Someone else wants to see them, but doesn't have consent. This person doesn't care about lack of consent. Shouldn't there be a way to keep this person away?
Even without financial incentive, some asshole could still decide to, say, post a bunch of heinous shit under your username for fun.
deleted by creator