2 ms·
You should try to add a bit more depth to your mental model. Most of us recognize differences between private citizens and public officials and government agent
by BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
You should try to add a bit more depth to your mental model. Most of us recognize differences between private citizens and public officials and government agents or between not wanting to be spied upon and wanting to know who the fuck is calling you so that you can rationally choose whether to ignore it.
- josefresco 8y agoYou're right, and my argument is not fully worked out. I had the thought yesterday and didn't post - I just find it odd that we're demanding "real ID" for telephone calls, but recoil in horror when proposals are made to tie "real ID" to IP addresses to online activity. I frequently advise my clients on website security, and tell them that all day long there are criminals who "jiggle the locks" (to put it tamely) of their website without any legal recourse or ramifications. They always ask why these people aren't identified and criminally prosecuted. I explain to them how they evade detection, and how "anonymity" is built into the ethos of our online world. Clients are shocked there's no way to identify, stop or even prosecute these people. Privacy advocates of course champion this anonymity because of the danger of abuse by government/corporate entities. Why don't we have the same attitude towards telephone calls? Both systems are widely abused, yet privacy for both are important. Like I said, this one is still rolling a round in my head - feel free to tear my argument a new one ;)
- xahrepap 8y agoI think part of the problem is that caller ID claims to provide clear identification. People are conditioned to believe caller ID and don't realize it can be easily spoofed. This feeds into the scam because people are willingly more gullible.