6 ms·

I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it. But, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they

by mfer 7y ago

I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it. But, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they have not thought it through and are often unaware. In some cases people think I'm crazy until I show them press coverage on it. I've learned that many don't have the depth of knowledge I have on the topic and have formed opinions with a puddles worth of information. Sometimes helping people learn more can change minds.

x220 7y ago
Democracy was a mistake. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
- cabaalis 7y ago
  That was a pretty common sentiment and even law for quite some time. A bunch of people died and/or devoted their lives to changing that.
  - 1000units 7y ago
    In some places this has happened in the opposite direction.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      Where?
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Or rather as Sir Winston Churchill said: "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minutes conversation with the average voter". A quote that is often at risk of being misunderstood like "soo, if Churchill was against democracy, how come they let him become England PM?". Actually that quote should focus the attention on how the power of democracy needs some level of culture to be used properly. Voters who keep listening to clowns appealing to their bellies during speeches will inevitably put those clowns (actually very clever people acting as such) in power who in return will keep shaping their country as a wonder park for other clowns, ruining it for everyone else. Therefore, that Churchill's quote should be read between the lines as "you want democracy? Fine, we all do, but that is a powerful tool just like a gun or a car, therefore here are the books, go study them and take some tests, then we talk about democracy".
- leppr 7y ago
  The election system itself ensures that voters' opinions on most specific governance issues are entirely ignored. Since citizens vote for only one out of a very restricted pool of candidates, every five years, the rational decision is to only consider the candidates' stance on topics directly affecting one's material well-being (so mostly finance/employment-related decisions). Unless voters are very prosperous, secondary quality-of-life decisions like surveillance are systematically pushed aside in general elections, and that regardless of their education level.
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  A bit less catchy than Mencken's "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."[1] 1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#1910s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#1910s
throwaway_law 7y ago
>I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they have not thought it through In the future just ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to you so you can look at their email, text and browser history. Watch them hesitate and refuse.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I do this. But more and more often, people are responding: "You're not the government." So it doesn't work as well as people think it does.
  - state_less 7y ago
    And my response would be, "My party voted in the government, so yeah, we voted for the right to look through your phone. Now hand it over or do you want to be a law breaking criminal too?"
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      And they'd still say, "You're not the government." And they'd be right. If you were part of the government, you wouldn't need to ask to see the data on her Facebook or whatever. You'd probably already have some secret access. I mean they're right. "You're not the government, and if you were you wouldn't need to ask." Point is, they trust the government implicitly. (And, for most voters, completely, in matters of security.)
      - state_less 7y ago
        And I'd say, "My party cares enough about safety that we voted that any card carrying party member can do a citizen search if they sense anything suspicious about another citizen. So hand over the phone" Hopefully we can install a sense of where things can lead to. Most folks aren't familiar with such strong tactics, but hopefully they are starting to become more so with party sanctioned violence (e.g. punch that opposing guy in the face).
ddingus 7y ago
This. One topic I use to get people thinking more about implications is speeding. Right now, in most places, there is balance. One can speed, and have reasons that are not to be judged at the moment, and there is some chance of it being detected and a ticket written. Could just be simple error too. Glance down at speedo, see +15 over, think "oops", and correct with no real worries. Happens all the time. Now, think about that android phone. Google actually knows when speeding happened, where, and all that. So far, the only action I have seen is Google alerting me to speed traps and a request for me to confirm they are still there. But, where will that lead? Does my insurer get that data? Can they get it? Should they get it? Etc... Then return to that balance bit. Say one gets a ticket. With, what I call old world balance in play, the general response is to just be a bit more careful and avoid future tickets. Simple, easy, reasonable. Now, with all that data collected, a ticket could be just the beginning. A review of your last year of driving reveals chronic behavior! To get past the ticket, monitoring is needed, your car may be required to limit speed to the legal limit at all times, and on it goes! Same scenario, same person, but two very different outcomes and perceptions! Should there be. Why? Or, say one is not popular politically, or got sucked into some sort of investigation just by poor timing and proximity, or maybe an unfortunate surname similarity. What could happen? One morning you get up to find your license to drive has been revoked and you owe a ton of fines. That happens despite never even being pulled over for years, or ever. Maybe it happens at random, like a drug test too. One day, boom. Your life is forever different, because data. All of us are extremely likely to be guilty enough to see the worst max penalty allowed for in the law too. True right now, today for me, you, everyone we know who drives. What should happen? Why? What public good does it serve? These are questions of balance. All of that mass data hoovering going on in pretty much all aspects of our lives is not balanced at all. The human factors we are accustomed to do not exist. The watchers are perfect. Or near perfect enough to be a concern. The first time Google prompted me about a speed trap, I thought, "spiffy" and saw it as a nice help / value add to Maps. Then later down the road I thought about where it can all lead. Nowhere good without some new rules, and even with those, trust is difficult. Frankly, I want to put my phone in a faraday cage after thinking about it all. People vary in their responses, but I can say this line of discussion can often get them thinking about these matters and it is all pretty easy to talk about. People, even those with light knowledge of these things, can picture their own driving, the phone, and potential outcomes.

by mfer 7y ago

x220 7y ago

Democracy was a mistake. These people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

cabaalis 7y ago
That was a pretty common sentiment and even law for quite some time. A bunch of people died and/or devoted their lives to changing that.
- 1000units 7y ago
  In some places this has happened in the opposite direction.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Where?
squarefoot 7y ago
Or rather as Sir Winston Churchill said: "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minutes conversation with the average voter". A quote that is often at risk of being misunderstood like "soo, if Churchill was against democracy, how come they let him become England PM?". Actually that quote should focus the attention on how the power of democracy needs some level of culture to be used properly. Voters who keep listening to clowns appealing to their bellies during speeches will inevitably put those clowns (actually very clever people acting as such) in power who in return will keep shaping their country as a wonder park for other clowns, ruining it for everyone else. Therefore, that Churchill's quote should be read between the lines as "you want democracy? Fine, we all do, but that is a powerful tool just like a gun or a car, therefore here are the books, go study them and take some tests, then we talk about democracy".
leppr 7y ago
The election system itself ensures that voters' opinions on most specific governance issues are entirely ignored. Since citizens vote for only one out of a very restricted pool of candidates, every five years, the rational decision is to only consider the candidates' stance on topics directly affecting one's material well-being (so mostly finance/employment-related decisions). Unless voters are very prosperous, secondary quality-of-life decisions like surveillance are systematically pushed aside in general elections, and that regardless of their education level.
blacksmith_tb 7y ago
A bit less catchy than Mencken's "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."[1] 1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#1910s https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken#1910s

throwaway_law 7y ago

>I've spoken with people who have said they are ok with it, when I start asking questions or sharing details on how this has been abused I tend to find they have not thought it through In the future just ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to you so you can look at their email, text and browser history. Watch them hesitate and refuse.

bilbo0s 7y ago
I do this. But more and more often, people are responding: "You're not the government." So it doesn't work as well as people think it does.
- state_less 7y ago
  And my response would be, "My party voted in the government, so yeah, we voted for the right to look through your phone. Now hand it over or do you want to be a law breaking criminal too?"
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    And they'd still say, "You're not the government." And they'd be right. If you were part of the government, you wouldn't need to ask to see the data on her Facebook or whatever. You'd probably already have some secret access. I mean they're right. "You're not the government, and if you were you wouldn't need to ask." Point is, they trust the government implicitly. (And, for most voters, completely, in matters of security.)
    - state_less 7y ago
      And I'd say, "My party cares enough about safety that we voted that any card carrying party member can do a citizen search if they sense anything suspicious about another citizen. So hand over the phone" Hopefully we can install a sense of where things can lead to. Most folks aren't familiar with such strong tactics, but hopefully they are starting to become more so with party sanctioned violence (e.g. punch that opposing guy in the face).

ddingus 7y ago

This. One topic I use to get people thinking more about implications is speeding. Right now, in most places, there is balance. One can speed, and have reasons that are not to be judged at the moment, and there is some chance of it being detected and a ticket written. Could just be simple error too. Glance down at speedo, see +15 over, think "oops", and correct with no real worries. Happens all the time. Now, think about that android phone. Google actually knows when speeding happened, where, and all that. So far, the only action I have seen is Google alerting me to speed traps and a request for me to confirm they are still there. But, where will that lead? Does my insurer get that data? Can they get it? Should they get it? Etc... Then return to that balance bit. Say one gets a ticket. With, what I call old world balance in play, the general response is to just be a bit more careful and avoid future tickets. Simple, easy, reasonable. Now, with all that data collected, a ticket could be just the beginning. A review of your last year of driving reveals chronic behavior! To get past the ticket, monitoring is needed, your car may be required to limit speed to the legal limit at all times, and on it goes! Same scenario, same person, but two very different outcomes and perceptions! Should there be. Why? Or, say one is not popular politically, or got sucked into some sort of investigation just by poor timing and proximity, or maybe an unfortunate surname similarity. What could happen? One morning you get up to find your license to drive has been revoked and you owe a ton of fines. That happens despite never even being pulled over for years, or ever. Maybe it happens at random, like a drug test too. One day, boom. Your life is forever different, because data. All of us are extremely likely to be guilty enough to see the worst max penalty allowed for in the law too. True right now, today for me, you, everyone we know who drives. What should happen? Why? What public good does it serve? These are questions of balance. All of that mass data hoovering going on in pretty much all aspects of our lives is not balanced at all. The human factors we are accustomed to do not exist. The watchers are perfect. Or near perfect enough to be a concern. The first time Google prompted me about a speed trap, I thought, "spiffy" and saw it as a nice help / value add to Maps. Then later down the road I thought about where it can all lead. Nowhere good without some new rules, and even with those, trust is difficult. Frankly, I want to put my phone in a faraday cage after thinking about it all. People vary in their responses, but I can say this line of discussion can often get them thinking about these matters and it is all pretty easy to talk about. People, even those with light knowledge of these things, can picture their own driving, the phone, and potential outcomes.