3 ms·
Well the point was that an utter absence of privacy, a world where privacy was illegal, even, would theoretically catch A LOT of bad people, but the losses far,
by PostOnce 7y ago
Well the point was that an utter absence of privacy, a world where privacy was illegal, even, would theoretically catch A LOT of bad people, but the losses far, FAR outweigh the gains -- think of what living in a fearful society would be like.
Net neutrality and digital privacy aren't remotely dead, for one thing because we don't live in a Universal Jurisdiction. The EFF exists for a reason and they're not trying to revive a corpse; they're trying to bring a slightly unhealthy body back to full strength.
It's not hard to imagine how this whole thing could go incredibly awry, and lead to abuses of power previously seen only in dystopian fiction.
- diveanon 7y ago"the losses far, FAR outweigh the gains" I disagree and think the topic should be open to public debate. Would I trust the US or China to implement a system like this fairly? No. However, in a country with a functional and impartial judicial system I think it has the potential to save many lives and redefine the criminal justice system into something that focuses on preventing crime and treating mental illness instead of just prosecuting it. I don't place a lot of value on your existential fear of abuse, just as I don't place a lot of value on 2nd amendment supporters existential fear of tyranny. "Muh data" sounds just as hollow as "muh guns" when weighed against the very real threats faced by innocent people every day.
- PostOnce 7y agoSo your policy is in effect "Let us oppress the many to protect the few." Alright, then.
- diveanon 7y agoAs I said in my previous comment, it's only oppression when implemented as such. Technology is a tool, the one who wields it bears the moral responsibility to use it correctly. Address the root causes of systemic oppression in your country and systems like this have potential to do tremendous good.
- PostOnce 7y agoThis is like tying up a zombie and hoping it doesn't get loose. Well, as long as the handcuffs are secure "we'll be fine!". It always bites you in the end. Power corrupts, remember? Best to limit it.
- diveanon 7y agoYou do realize we have thousands of nuclear weapons right?
- PostOnce 7y agoThey've been used and will be again ... there's a reason we have so much media exploring that fear in fiction, a reason so many fallout shelters were built, a reason we derailed Iran's nuclear program. It's a big risk, and it's going to go really badly for us all one day, or at least that is as likely as peace is. So, what's your point?
- diveanon 7y agoThey are a reality and have arguably saved more lives than they have taken. We have systems in place to prevent their abuse and despite our personal dislike of them they serve purpose. If we have learned to be judicious and cautious with their use I am confident we can handle something like an ai driven social monitoring program. We trust our governments with the greatest destructive capability ever devised, what I am proposing is a far smaller threat.