3 ms·
you might think they would if they had the same understanding of the issues as you do, but as of today, they don't. How many ordinary people had a good underst
by jodrellblank 7y ago
you might think they would if they had the same understanding of the issues as you do, but as of today, they don't.
How many ordinary people had a good understanding of the neurological effects of leaded petrol before it got legislated against?
How many ordinary people have a good understanding of which furniture padding materials give off noxious fumes when burned before that was legislated about?
How many ordinary people understood Thalidomide or Vioxx - or had even heard of them - before they got removed from the market?
Why is “it has to get to the level where everyone understands it before experts can recommend action” any more valid regarding tech surveillance?
- emtel 7y agoI never said it did, nor do I think that. I said people don't care. If we want legal privacy protections even though people don't care, that's a reasonable thing to want. What I'm reacting against is the claim I see so often which is basically "people actually care about this but they have no choice". I think people care much less, yet have much more choice than is normally claimed.