4 ms·

Except when fear comes into play. You might enjoy reading this: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/9200/why-do-people-fear-statistically-unlikely-th

Except when fear comes into play. You might enjoy reading this: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/9200/why-do-people-fear-statistically-unlikely-things https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/9200/why-do-p... In this particular case, there is a fear that one could get a severe sentence (e.g. capital punishment) without having even committed a crime, all due to the police changing their password. If a person is afraid enough of that (unlikely) potential outcome, they may ignore statistics all together and follow their fear. For more examples of how much people ignore probability, consider https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/news/economy/lottery-spending/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/24/news/economy/lottery-spendi... and https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-casino-make-daily https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-casino-make-daily

nabla9 8y ago
How that fear is supposed to help with court cases? Defendant being fearful does not help his case.
- jamescostian 8y ago
  I'm not saying people should take the stand and say they're afraid... perhaps we have different interpretations of the quote from appleflaxen that was quoted and that you responded to. Here it is: "You could argue that the authorities have presented you with a device that has had the password changed. If they actually do this do they just get to lock you up for however long they feel like?" I interpreted that quote to be used as potential horror story that could be created by compelled decryption. As such, the fear that story creates could make it used as an argument against compelled decryption ("if a court can compel you to decrypt your files, then $HORROR_STORY is possible! We need to all fight against compelled decryption!"). A good number of people will get behind that argument, even though (as you said) that argument depends on an "unlikely logical possibility". And those people using the fear of that horror story to dislike (and maybe even rally against) compelled decryption is what my point was about.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    I guess I should have mentioned that my comment was about argumentation in the court.

nabla9 8y ago

How that fear is supposed to help with court cases? Defendant being fearful does not help his case.

jamescostian 8y ago
I'm not saying people should take the stand and say they're afraid... perhaps we have different interpretations of the quote from appleflaxen that was quoted and that you responded to. Here it is: "You could argue that the authorities have presented you with a device that has had the password changed. If they actually do this do they just get to lock you up for however long they feel like?" I interpreted that quote to be used as potential horror story that could be created by compelled decryption. As such, the fear that story creates could make it used as an argument against compelled decryption ("if a court can compel you to decrypt your files, then $HORROR_STORY is possible! We need to all fight against compelled decryption!"). A good number of people will get behind that argument, even though (as you said) that argument depends on an "unlikely logical possibility". And those people using the fear of that horror story to dislike (and maybe even rally against) compelled decryption is what my point was about.
- nabla9 8y ago
  I guess I should have mentioned that my comment was about argumentation in the court.