3 ms·
I disagree because intentions and capabilities both play a part, often to different degrees from different parties, and duplicity in both are often hidden, and
by arminiusreturns 7y ago
I disagree because intentions and capabilities both play a part, often to different degrees from different parties, and duplicity in both are often hidden, and therefore saying it's just because tech is cheap is a very superficial analysis of the issue at hand. To me that just seems like an easily planned plausible deniability strategy by those involved. Of course hyperfocusing on one isn't the right way, but neither is going the other directional extreme.
One of the biggest problems with issues like this is that there would be a mixture of logical methods used to draw conclusions and lots of people forget the difference between inductive and deductive logic. (Intentions being more inductive and capabilities being more deductive)
- mLuby 7y agoThe vagueness of your comment makes it difficult to understand what you mean. Can you rephrase with shorter words and sentences?
- arminiusreturns 7y agoIntentions (potentially malicious, etc) matter and play a big part, but are harder to prove. I reject the idea that the deployment of surveillance tech is simply because certain leaders just are convinced it's cheap. Any kind of large city like San Diego has all kinds of military industrial complex actors pushing it in directions for all kinds of obvious reasons that are commonly connected to surveillance. tldr; In general, increases in surveillance are almost always about control, and not protection.