4 ms·
I think it's less about the leaders of a group than about its members themselves. When I read about the government having access to identification attributes o
by lemmsjid 8y ago
I think it's less about the leaders of a group than about its members themselves.
When I read about the government having access to identification attributes of the general populace, I recall that a focal part of the Nazi attempts to eradicate European Jews was actually finding them. One theory for why Dutch Jews were killed at a higher rate than neighboring countries was that the government kept religious affiliation as part of its census information. IIRC, the Dutch resistance made a semi-successful attempt to destroy the records before they could be used. I can't find a direct reference to that particular event yet, hence my 'IIRC', but the general context is laid out in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II.
I think the point here is that even if a government is being innocuous in its information gathering, what happens if the government is then occupied by a group that is entirely not innocuous? This can get much more subtle than genocide: for example healthcare groups using data to try to remove people with certain conditions from their rolls.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- roywiggins 8y agoSee also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust?wprov=...