3 ms·
_This_ particular version of the system does, yes. But the next iteration may slightly weaken the privacy for some "legitimate" reason. And the next version sli
by joekrill 7y ago
_This_ particular version of the system does, yes. But the next iteration may slightly weaken the privacy for some "legitimate" reason. And the next version slightly more. Then just a bit more. All for seemingly legitimate reasons. That's the slippery slope.
- shadowgovt 7y agoThat's not a very impressive slippery slope if we've just concluded that the first step of it is horizontal. If this system goes to some lengths to preserve privacy, slippery slope argument doesn't really apply.
- taborj 7y agoThat's a false sense of security. Change often starts with a lateral move, but one closer to the slope being acceptable.
- shadowgovt 7y agoGreat. Then we should keep an eye out for the actual thing that's down the slope. Forgoing useful technologies because a slope exists is like refusing to mine coal because the uranium nearby could some day be used to build atomic bombs.
- drivingmenuts 7y agoNeither of your example minerals are particularly healthy for humans, nor can they be made so without extreme efforts.
- shadowgovt 7y agoBut we can agree there's a world of difference. There isn't a massive international storage and handling agreement for coal and its waste products, and no country has ever been preemptively bombed over mining too much coal.
- DagAgren 7y agoWhy not just ask telecom companies for all their data? Quicker, stealthier and much easier. There is not NEED to use this scheme in such a convoluted way. There are far better ways to spy, and the way to protect against it is through politics and laws.
- shadowgovt 7y agoExactly. People worrying about what their smartphones could be leaking via a convoluted point-to-point aggregation process while every telephone conversation and email is routed through dozens of third-party machines with unaccountable auditing going on.