4 ms·
You say it's not a good argument but you don't say why. I think it's appropriate, insofar as it's the very government that's made these things safer, improved
by diminoten 7y ago
You say it's not a good argument but you don't say why. I think it's appropriate, insofar as it's the very government that's made these things safer, improved the lives of their citizens by getting involved.
The exact same mechanisms are available to fight both car deaths and malicious actors. Why do we trust the government to do one but not the other?
(Keep in mind I'm NOT in favor of backdooring crypto, I just don't think "but the government is corrupt" is a good argument against it)
- UncleEntity 7y agoGovernment today might not be too bad but that has no bearing on government tomorrow. Anne Frank's father had nothing to hide when he filled in the official forms asking his family religion and we all know how that turned out...
- andrei_says_ 7y agoGovernments, including current one(s) do have a history of targeting activists and whistleblowers using legal and surveillance tools intended for targeting terrorism. This does not benefit the population, it only benefits organized crime organizations entrenched in government. How do cars benefit organized crime as disproportionally as abovementioned tools?
- Darth_Hobo 7y agoAt this point I would actually prefer a criminal street gang to physically protect me. Because they don't care about my private life as long as I pay up. Government does care about my private life, even if I pay up.