3 ms·

Why not? Large number of the population doesn't have anything worth writing about or losing if their mail/phone call show up on CNN or Fox News. It is sad, I ag

by kvs 17y ago

Why not? Large number of the population doesn't have anything worth writing about or losing if their mail/phone call show up on CNN or Fox News. It is sad, I agree. Lesson for us is not to despair but to figure out how we can "sell" a good idea as an economic incentive (vs. scare tactic). Majority of the population understands that. I would point to Bill Gates Innovation to Zero as a reference of this tactic. Check that talk out on TED.

ErrantX 17y ago
The concern is not so much that. Indeed I wouldnt particularly worry too much either way about being monitored. The problem is as follows: - not everyone feels comfortable being monitored - innocent data (such as porn surfing) can cause serious damage to someone if released in the wrong way/light - there is the capacity for serious abuse. Someone could get unauthorized access to the system. Or the government could use it to impose censorship etc. So while the majority have nothing to lose - they also dont have a huge amount to gain (because things like this wouldnt stop malware being a problem as claimed - etc.). On the other hand it would adversely affect a reasonable minority for all sorts of reasons.
- kvs 17y ago
  Yes, I understand that. And that's why "people" (which I thought referred to the majority) don't care about this stuff and these stupid policies get through senate & house. Those who benefit from these policies know how to make the majority care-- everyone cares about child exploitation, and terrorists-- but we haven't quite figured out how to make majority aware that this is a double edge sword or propose better alternatives (the hard part).
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Im really sorry - for some reason I read your comment as saying "so why shouldn't they be monitored" Which clearly it doesnt. Umm :( Totally agree with you.
- dantheman 17y ago
  The real problem more than anything else is that systems like this would be used by politicians in power to spy on their competition. It'd be much easier to stay in power when you know what your opponent is planning.

by kvs 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

The concern is not so much that. Indeed I wouldnt particularly worry too much either way about being monitored. The problem is as follows: - not everyone feels comfortable being monitored - innocent data (such as porn surfing) can cause serious damage to someone if released in the wrong way/light - there is the capacity for serious abuse. Someone could get unauthorized access to the system. Or the government could use it to impose censorship etc. So while the majority have nothing to lose - they also dont have a huge amount to gain (because things like this wouldnt stop malware being a problem as claimed - etc.). On the other hand it would adversely affect a reasonable minority for all sorts of reasons.

kvs 17y ago
Yes, I understand that. And that's why "people" (which I thought referred to the majority) don't care about this stuff and these stupid policies get through senate & house. Those who benefit from these policies know how to make the majority care-- everyone cares about child exploitation, and terrorists-- but we haven't quite figured out how to make majority aware that this is a double edge sword or propose better alternatives (the hard part).
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Im really sorry - for some reason I read your comment as saying "so why shouldn't they be monitored" Which clearly it doesnt. Umm :( Totally agree with you.
dantheman 17y ago
The real problem more than anything else is that systems like this would be used by politicians in power to spy on their competition. It'd be much easier to stay in power when you know what your opponent is planning.