3 ms·

The example I always give: in the Netherlands in the 30's there was a census. Everyone gently filled in the number of people in their family, their ages, and th

by ArnoVW 7y ago

The example I always give: in the Netherlands in the 30's there was a census. Everyone gently filled in the number of people in their family, their ages, and their religion. Because, surely there was no harm in helping the state better organise the country? Unfortunately the Germans found those same records very useful a couple of years later, and they tracked down the families that had filled in "jewish" as religion. In France such a central register did not exist, for cultural and political reasons. Even today the French state state has explicitly chosen not to keep per-race statistics on crime etc. WW II stats: ------------ Jews dead in France: 25% Jews dead in the Netherlands : 95% Just because you trust your current government, and because you are currently not a minority, does not mean that you run the what-ifs.

Zenst 7y ago
A most excellent example that highlights what should and should not be captured and stored. Though sadly even today we have forms from doctors/governments that ask for race (I always out of principle scrub that out and write "human"). But then they say these metrics are captured to help prevent discrimination kinda argument! As your wonderful example shows, that can be abused. Really gets down to DNA being useful and abusable in many ways. The real onus should as always with such personal data - be in the hands of the individual and with that, the ability to opt-in/out choice needs to be there. I'd have no problem of my DNA to be used to help identify a crime perpetrated by some genetic relative, some on the other hand would not. But the choice should be with the individual and a complete ban, removes that right from those who would want to aid justice. When things can be used for good and bad, blanket bans do not work out as well and it should be down to a default position of no, but the ability for individuals to opt-in.
BurningFrog 7y ago
I think that argument "proves too much", as the saying goes. Something wildly unlikely can always happen that turns your good intentioned idea into a genocidal nightmare or other disaster. So an honest application of this principle would result in never doing anything. That would of course be impossible. But usually proponents only apply this "you never know what might go wrong!" kind of thinking for things they already dislike. So in practice it boils down to "we shouldn't do things I have a bad feeling about, because you never know etc". And that is possible to argue for! In reality, there are always risks, and you have to weigh them realistically against the reward, and accept that occasionally things go bad.
- kragen 7y ago
  Police and prosecutors abusing their power is not "wildly unlikely"; it happens every day. The government of a country being replaced by one with newly terrible human rights policies that go far beyond the usual abuses isn't "wildly unlikely" either; it typically happens in several countries every year. In the last five years it's happened in Yemen, parts of Iraq and Syria, Venezuela, Brazil, Turkey, China, Crimea, and Hungary, and, according to many human rights organizations, the United States of America.

by ArnoVW 7y ago

Zenst 7y ago

A most excellent example that highlights what should and should not be captured and stored. Though sadly even today we have forms from doctors/governments that ask for race (I always out of principle scrub that out and write "human"). But then they say these metrics are captured to help prevent discrimination kinda argument! As your wonderful example shows, that can be abused. Really gets down to DNA being useful and abusable in many ways. The real onus should as always with such personal data - be in the hands of the individual and with that, the ability to opt-in/out choice needs to be there. I'd have no problem of my DNA to be used to help identify a crime perpetrated by some genetic relative, some on the other hand would not. But the choice should be with the individual and a complete ban, removes that right from those who would want to aid justice. When things can be used for good and bad, blanket bans do not work out as well and it should be down to a default position of no, but the ability for individuals to opt-in.

BurningFrog 7y ago

I think that argument "proves too much", as the saying goes. Something wildly unlikely can always happen that turns your good intentioned idea into a genocidal nightmare or other disaster. So an honest application of this principle would result in never doing anything. That would of course be impossible. But usually proponents only apply this "you never know what might go wrong!" kind of thinking for things they already dislike. So in practice it boils down to "we shouldn't do things I have a bad feeling about, because you never know etc". And that is possible to argue for! In reality, there are always risks, and you have to weigh them realistically against the reward, and accept that occasionally things go bad.

kragen 7y ago
Police and prosecutors abusing their power is not "wildly unlikely"; it happens every day. The government of a country being replaced by one with newly terrible human rights policies that go far beyond the usual abuses isn't "wildly unlikely" either; it typically happens in several countries every year. In the last five years it's happened in Yemen, parts of Iraq and Syria, Venezuela, Brazil, Turkey, China, Crimea, and Hungary, and, according to many human rights organizations, the United States of America.