5 ms·
I think your point is interesting if not conclusive, and I think your down-voters missed your final paragraph, but I think you're missing something here: > The
by dllthomas 6y ago
I think your point is interesting if not conclusive, and I think your down-voters missed your final paragraph, but I think you're missing something here:
> The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
There are a lot of situations we forbid activity that is difficult to prevent (and sometimes difficult to detect).
Whether trying to use the law to deter here is worthwhile, meaningless, or harmful isn't necessarily clear - but it deserves consideration in addition to outright prevention.
- nine_k 6y agoI'm afraid it's like forbidding drugs. It definitely somehow limits their use, but anybody really interested is able to obtain them illegally, or produce them themselves. I'm afraid the same will be true about micro-drones or whatever else the post suggests.
- dllthomas 6y agoI definitely agree that there's a risk of that, but I think it deserves to be included in the analysis. It's different from drugs in that one of the participants is unwilling, though I don't know whether that's a big enough difference - particularly given that that participant is also unwitting.
- thraway12 6y agoor it's not original...
- strbean 6y agoOh no, did someone post an unoriginal thought on the internet?