4 ms·

> Mr. Brady, who remains Aqueti’s biggest shareholder, said he has no qualms about aiding China’s surveillance system, which critics claim leads to humans-right

> Mr. Brady, who remains Aqueti’s biggest shareholder, said he has no qualms about aiding China’s surveillance system, which critics claim leads to humans-rights abuses. > “A government doesn’t need the hand of technology to be oppressive,” he said.

maxander 8y ago
Of course they don’t. They just need complacent accomplices, such as Mr. Brady.
- samch 8y ago
  ...and Duke University itself which owns the IP and is likely also a shareholder in this venture.
  - mylons 8y ago
    but everyone's gonna get rich, so who cares
    - sgift 8y ago
      First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics. - The Three Penny Opera, Bertolt Brecht Edit: Let's add a second one, which fits here - "You have to kill your neighbor to survive. It's selfishness that keeps a man alive."
codeulike 8y ago
Such a stupid argument. So you have two factors: X and Y that contribute to bad thing Z. Decreasing X (surveillance technology in this case) will decrease Z, even if Y (oppressive-minded government) remains the same. But his statement is aimed to occlude that obvious fact through sophistry. I don't really need to point out the other obvious place where the same argument often gets used.
- flak48 8y ago
  This exact argument is used by the Indian Government too when questioned about the very-real surveillance possibilities enabled by Aadhaar.
- akavel 8y ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
galactus 8y ago
Another version of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"
musage 8y ago
No, but it helps. Just like humans don't need murderers to die at some point, and just like no murderer gets off with "people die anyway". > In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak. -- George Orwell

maxander 8y ago

Of course they don’t. They just need complacent accomplices, such as Mr. Brady.

samch 8y ago
...and Duke University itself which owns the IP and is likely also a shareholder in this venture.
- mylons 8y ago
  but everyone's gonna get rich, so who cares
  - sgift 8y ago
    First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics. - The Three Penny Opera, Bertolt Brecht Edit: Let's add a second one, which fits here - "You have to kill your neighbor to survive. It's selfishness that keeps a man alive."

codeulike 8y ago

Such a stupid argument. So you have two factors: X and Y that contribute to bad thing Z. Decreasing X (surveillance technology in this case) will decrease Z, even if Y (oppressive-minded government) remains the same. But his statement is aimed to occlude that obvious fact through sophistry. I don't really need to point out the other obvious place where the same argument often gets used.

flak48 8y ago
This exact argument is used by the Indian Government too when questioned about the very-real surveillance possibilities enabled by Aadhaar.
akavel 8y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

galactus 8y ago

Another version of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

musage 8y ago

No, but it helps. Just like humans don't need murderers to die at some point, and just like no murderer gets off with "people die anyway". > In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak. -- George Orwell