3 ms·
These things are quite obviously very different and I can’t find a way to read this in good faith (except perhaps from an extreme libertarian point of view), le
by dan-robertson 8y ago
These things are quite obviously very different and I can’t find a way to read this in good faith (except perhaps from an extreme libertarian point of view), let alone in a good light.
One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances.
The other is a law requiring phones to invade people’s privacy in some circumstances.
I think it is quite reasonable to follow the former, just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings or meet various antitrust requirements.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago> One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances. A law that restricts my freedom to customize my device. Plus their privacy was being invaded from the moment that I looked at them, taking a photo would not change anything. > just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings As long as it is configurable, sure.
- et2o 8y agoThis is the logic of a 12 year old.