3 ms·

Human decision making is terrifyingly biased. The fear that currently grips the world and its leaders is perfect cover for leaders bent on a totalitarian streak

by SCHiM 7y ago

Human decision making is terrifyingly biased. The fear that currently grips the world and its leaders is perfect cover for leaders bent on a totalitarian streak. 'Doing what is right', 'fighting this and that'. Your own point made here is evidence that you too are at least partially in this state of mind, given that you equate our current situation to being on a sinking ship. A number of questions come to mind: Are we really in such a dire situation? Is compromising on rights justified to get rid of this situation? About 1. Some countries got hit very hard, communities ripped apart and families devastated. That's not even considering the drawn out consequences of the economic downturn. The situation is dire. But on 2, it's much easier: I don't want you or anyone else to know about my stuff. Its nobodies business but my own. I completely opposed to any form of control in the name or for the sake of fighting this. Any technical measure I will oppose, probably quite successfully. I reject the premise that we're able to make effective decisions right now that are not clouded in fear, are not too drastic and can be modeled to effectively respect our rights.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
It's a question of priority, not ideology or naivety or fear. There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear. In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible. If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the pandemic then this ought to be the priority. This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited time' part is what ought to be the safeguard). The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could track me on my commute to my long lost job!".
- abetteramerica 7y ago
  Thats a convenient framing to have that simply dismisses reality and the past rather than dealing with them. It wont be a minimal compromise of rights, it will be direct violations. It will not be limited and it will be used beyond its intent. They have proven this time and again. They cannot be trusted, nor can the people that come after them who made no such promises. This is the same crap Congress tries to give us on so many issues. 'Here is our solution, its the only possible solution (its not) so it must be passed even though its terrible.'
- SCHiM 7y ago
  Most stringently disagree. There are numerous examples in history where do-good measures have later been abused in the most abhorrent manner possible. In fact, I'm living in a place whose history is influenced by one of these examples[1]. Our ideology, ideas and what we do and don't find acceptable in this world are what matters. We can't sacrifice our rights in the name of necessity because it just doesn't stop. ever. There will always be disease. There will always be terrorists. There will always be criminals, child pornography and drugs. As an example of deaths that our system does find acceptable just look at the amount of deaths caused by drunk driving. It's technologically perfectly feasible to equip every car with a breathalyzer, but we don't. The number of deaths from the current disease is obviously higher, but that too will pass, the cars will still be there. History is also littered with disaster and recovery. Doesn't mean every disaster has to happen, also doesn't mean things have to be sacrificed to stop one either. In the end that's my stance on this: rather face this current disaster, than the one we'd be constructing when we sacrifice our rights. And that's just how it is, as far as I'm concerned. [1] https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-we-did-have-something-to-hide/ https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-...
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  > There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear. This is wrong. Governments have a long history of opportunistically expanding their reach and power when it comes to matters concerning privacy. The PATRIOT Act, for instance, or everything Snowden has written about. Only rarely do they voluntarily give it up. I can see where you're coming from with your other points, but there's a good reason people here tend to be very distrustful of governments when it comes to privacy matters.

by SCHiM 7y ago

mytailorisrich 7y ago

It's a question of priority, not ideology or naivety or fear. There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear. In the US and Western Europe we are factually on a sinking ship. The economy and society as a whole are sinking. This must stop as soon as possible. If tools like tracking apps allow to reopen sooner while controlling the pandemic then this ought to be the priority. This is a minimal compromise of rights for a limited time only (the 'limited time' part is what ought to be the safeguard). The fear, and frankly paranoia, is not on the side of being in favour of these tools, it is on the side of rejecting them for ideological reasons. It's seeking a pyrrhic victory: "Ah everything collapsed but at least no-one could track me on my commute to my long lost job!".

abetteramerica 7y ago
Thats a convenient framing to have that simply dismisses reality and the past rather than dealing with them. It wont be a minimal compromise of rights, it will be direct violations. It will not be limited and it will be used beyond its intent. They have proven this time and again. They cannot be trusted, nor can the people that come after them who made no such promises. This is the same crap Congress tries to give us on so many issues. 'Here is our solution, its the only possible solution (its not) so it must be passed even though its terrible.'
SCHiM 7y ago
Most stringently disagree. There are numerous examples in history where do-good measures have later been abused in the most abhorrent manner possible. In fact, I'm living in a place whose history is influenced by one of these examples[1]. Our ideology, ideas and what we do and don't find acceptable in this world are what matters. We can't sacrifice our rights in the name of necessity because it just doesn't stop. ever. There will always be disease. There will always be terrorists. There will always be criminals, child pornography and drugs. As an example of deaths that our system does find acceptable just look at the amount of deaths caused by drunk driving. It's technologically perfectly feasible to equip every car with a breathalyzer, but we don't. The number of deaths from the current disease is obviously higher, but that too will pass, the cars will still be there. History is also littered with disaster and recovery. Doesn't mean every disaster has to happen, also doesn't mean things have to be sacrificed to stop one either. In the end that's my stance on this: rather face this current disaster, than the one we'd be constructing when we sacrifice our rights. And that's just how it is, as far as I'm concerned. [1] https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-we-did-have-something-to-hide/ https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-...
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> There is no "bend on a totalitarian streak", that is the irrational fear. This is wrong. Governments have a long history of opportunistically expanding their reach and power when it comes to matters concerning privacy. The PATRIOT Act, for instance, or everything Snowden has written about. Only rarely do they voluntarily give it up. I can see where you're coming from with your other points, but there's a good reason people here tend to be very distrustful of governments when it comes to privacy matters.