4 ms·
I think the issue here is not where we are at but the risks inherent. It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator, he might think he is doing e
by pixelbash 7y ago
I think the issue here is not where we are at but the risks inherent.
It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator, he might think he is doing everything for the benefit of the people - and he might even be right. This situation is fine, the issue is what happens when that dictator dies.
Similarly with mass surveillance, if used with restraint and for the right reasons it could be completely fine. The problem is what happens if the situation changes, there is now a massively powerful tool available with little recourse for change.
I think the issue is not the situation as it is _now_, it's the risk potential it inherently has that is terrifying.
- xnyan 7y ago>It would be entirely possible to have a benevolent dictator You lost me at this straw man. You are tossing around nebulous and vague concerns. Would it be fair to say your concern is potential abuse of your photos by a government entity?
- pixelbash 7y agoI'd call it an analogy rather than a straw man. The formula is [now thing] is safe in [now context] but [future context] != [now context] so is [future thing] safe? It's fair to say my concern is potential abuse of any system in a fluctuating context.