5 ms·
>Banning stuff will allow us to go after and punish the non-honest ones. In a perfect World yes, we do not live in a perfect World and it is not so simple as m
by Zenst 7y ago
>Banning stuff will allow us to go after and punish the non-honest ones.
In a perfect World yes, we do not live in a perfect World and it is not so simple as many things testifies, drugs - they are banned - see how that works.
>Banning stuff will make honest people do it less and therefore present less opportunities for non-honest actors to steal this valuable data (e.g. through security lapses).
Reducing things and banning them to cater for the lowest denominator - Look at the history of things banned and tell me that that saw a reduction in crime as it don't - again....drugs.
> There are no silver bullets, we cannot solve complex issues in one master stroke.
Totally agree - but a poor stoke can do more harm than doing nothing, not advocating nothing but back to my first point if something appears broken then you fix it.
But I'll raise another issue with an analogy - if the internet was cars - would we allow people to drive without having a test. Yes cars can kill, but not like the internet is incapable of doing them same as we have seen. The internet and offerings have evolved and there are not restrictions beyond age (an artificial hurdle) that stop you doing what you like, oh and laws which are less clear in the quagmire of the internet as it is not in one country and country laws vary.
So unless you ban it everywhere, you are akin to sweeping it under the carper in one location and allowing free reign in others.
Let us remember that more crime has been committed and fraud via the telephone than via the use of facial recognition and old types of fraud - whilst banned/illegal - still prevail.
How did that ban on spam work out again - oh right, you got people who think, well its not in my spam folder so its not spam - this African Prince with loads of money must be legit as rules to block spam and this is not spam - that much I know and tada....a little knowledge driving on the internet strikes again.
Yes - no silver bullet - single solution, but banning things often works as a bad solution due to numerous factors - including human nature as many Number #1 music record that got banned from airplay will attest.
- simion314 7y agoDrugs in really different, many people have the opinion that you can do whatever you want with your body but nobody thinks that is fine that someone else can do whatever he wants with your body. So the later case with violent crimes are rare in civilized counties compared to speeding or drugs. I understand that banning things just trigger the peole that want to legalize drugs but the topic is not about drugs or about guns.
- Zenst 7y agoThat was one example that highlights how banning alone is not a solution. Not advocating in any way about drugs - just an easy example of the ban effect not solving the problem.
- simion314 7y agoMaybe it did not worked in some cases like US but it worked in other cases/communities. I also would say that banning face recognition in public places is not similar to banning it in your private home or in a company that uses it on images where they have permissions to use it, what most people want is not getting tracked without permissions is more similar like I don't want second hand smoking in a public place where me and my family are but you can smoke in your home or wherever you have permissions from the others.
- Retric 7y agoIt’s really a combination of addictive and easy to manufacture and or transport that makes that makes banning ineffective. Pot and alcohol are both very easy to manufacture domestically where heroin is easy to transport. LSD on the other hand is simply not addictive enough.
- dangerface 7y ago> In a perfect World yes, we do not live in a perfect World and it is not so simple as many things testifies, drugs - they are banned - see how that works. They could and do punish people who take drugs, the problem is that every one takes drugs and they don't have the resources to punish everyone. Laws are only effective if the masses agree to them, the masses don't want a surveillance state.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago> Look at the history of things banned and tell me that that saw a reduction in crime as it don't - again....drugs. I can't see any survivorship bias at all! Also, you might want to distinguish "banning common people from doing something they easily can do with local resources for their pleasure" and "banning large organizations from doing something on a global scale for profit".