4 ms·

Even better, I find that not murdering people is a much easier solution to this problem.

• Fnoord 9y ago
  Murder is -obviously- a hyperbole (though I'm sure a certain H. Reiser would agree). You can make a case for anything voluntarily involving destroying your privacy. Compare to GDR. You were always watched, period. The same's true now, but its partly voluntarily. Is it desirable? You should decide on that on a case-by-case scenario. Schneier wrote several essays on this matter (here's one [1] and a more recent one [2]) and his latest book, Data and Goliath also covers this subject. Interestingly the more we centralise on our smartphones, the more difficult voluntarily leaving it home becomes. We already put all kind of NFC cards like our bank and public transport on our phones these days. What's next, unlocking the car via NFC? [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal_value_of.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/05/the_eternal... [2] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic_asse.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_t...
  • QAPereo 9y ago
    I’m not arguing against privacy, or for this kind of abusive tech used in the system. I’m just saying that this particular story doesn’t make for a great exemplar, anymore than the guy who was nailed because of his smart water meter. There are plenty of examples of surveillance abuse and slapdash prosecution without having to rely on this.
  • baud147258 9y ago
    My brother is building appartement buildings. In some they are using NFC card as access key for the appartements. So you might one day enter your home with your phone (without adding IoT or something, out of the box).
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]