3 ms·
Yes, sometimes the best you can do without violating everyone's privacy is just the best you can do. You work with it. You lose sometimes, maybe you pay a perce
by problems 10y ago
Yes, sometimes the best you can do without violating everyone's privacy is just the best you can do. You work with it. You lose sometimes, maybe you pay a percent or two extra for insurance to pay out in such cases of fraud, but you accept that it's better than the blatant privacy violation of the other systems.
To put it another way, just because terrorists could use unencrypted email to communicate doesn't mean we have to go and scan everyone's email for threats.
- pixelcloud 10y agoAnd to further this point. You address the root causes of these issues in government and society. Why is the debate "Should we take away more of peoples privacy?" and not "How can we stop things from happening that create reasons to remove privacy?". The logic is basically this: Terrorists now are communicating over encrypted p2p systems (or any new tech)! we need to backdoor encryption standards. Then! we will defeat the Terrorists (once and for all). Crime works in a similar fashion. The police will never "solve crime" no matter how much power they have to invade your privacy. They will become great at catching criminals though. Typical humans!