4 ms·
Wouldn't the counterargument be "but only the government would have access, and we can trust the government"?
by tricolon 6y ago
Wouldn't the counterargument be "but only the government would have access, and we can trust the government"?
- kortilla 6y agoNo, because such a scheme is not really possible. It’s only a matter of time before the governments secret key gets leaked.
- cortic 6y agoSure. But Kevin, who works in a government department, is someone.
- dilap 6y agoEven if you grant "only the government has access," I think you still shouldn't be complacent, because what the government considers acceptable can change, and may not agree with what you think is acceptable. E.g., maybe a govt comes into power that is strongly anti-gay, and punishes you for being pro-gay rights. Or the opposite. In general the idea that the government will always be reasonable and should have unlimited surveillance powers is unsound and unappealing.
- tintor 6y agoOr the current situation in Hong Kong with China, for example.
- mr_toad 6y agoI work for the government. Mind if I riffle through your contacts? Is it ok to DM any cute people I find?
- cja 6y agoWhy do cute people need special protection?
- dragonwriter 6y agoThe counter-counter-argument is the whole history of both individual (against policy) and official (by policy) abuse of surveillance in the history of government. Every expansion of monitoring must weigh the specific expected benefits against the very real cost of expanding both of those abuse surfaces.
- lowwave 6y agoJust check out the Stasi in Germany. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- pdonis 6y agoOnly if you were willing to accept the "we can trust the government" part.
- suchire 6y agoWhich government?