4 ms·

Fair enough. I see this as a price worth paying for privacy.

arcticbull 5y ago
Well that, crime, money laundering, terrorist financing and evasion of international sanctions allowing hermit kingdoms to finance nuclear warheads. But half dozen of one, I guess.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  So if I give up just this little bit of privacy, all of those concerns melt away to nothingness? Or is it more likely that I give that away and nothing else really improves?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    If you give up some privacy (subject to release with a judge's approval) then we can attempt to reign in bad actors. Deciding that we shouldn't attempt to reign in bad actors is, IMO, a bad call - and one I don't think enjoys broad-based support. Yes, I think it's worse if North Korea gets a nuke than if the FBI gets a peek at my Amazon purchases pursuant to a judge's order.
    - krageon 5y ago
      I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        > I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. North Korea has leveraged cryptocurrency to evade sanctions to the tune of billions of dollars. [1] This has a material negative impact on global security. > We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. We are roughly at one of the safest, most peaceful points in history. [2] This is in no small part due to our careful and measured efforts to balance privacy and the public good. Generally you have a right to privacy unless someone can show a good reason why you should lose that right - at least at a state level. I think this is the right balance. I think most people do too. > It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another. Citation needed. And I don't mean that glibly, if you have some data I'll happily read it. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north-korean-hackers-accused-of-biggest-cryptocurrency-theft-of-2020-their-heists-are-now-worth-175-billion/?sh=15704a925b0b https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north... [2] https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-a-look-at-the-data-5af708f47fba https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-...

Well that, crime, money laundering, terrorist financing and evasion of international sanctions allowing hermit kingdoms to finance nuclear warheads. But half dozen of one, I guess.

sokoloff 5y ago
So if I give up just this little bit of privacy, all of those concerns melt away to nothingness? Or is it more likely that I give that away and nothing else really improves?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  If you give up some privacy (subject to release with a judge's approval) then we can attempt to reign in bad actors. Deciding that we shouldn't attempt to reign in bad actors is, IMO, a bad call - and one I don't think enjoys broad-based support. Yes, I think it's worse if North Korea gets a nuke than if the FBI gets a peek at my Amazon purchases pursuant to a judge's order.
  - krageon 5y ago
    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. North Korea has leveraged cryptocurrency to evade sanctions to the tune of billions of dollars. [1] This has a material negative impact on global security. > We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. We are roughly at one of the safest, most peaceful points in history. [2] This is in no small part due to our careful and measured efforts to balance privacy and the public good. Generally you have a right to privacy unless someone can show a good reason why you should lose that right - at least at a state level. I think this is the right balance. I think most people do too. > It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another. Citation needed. And I don't mean that glibly, if you have some data I'll happily read it. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north-korean-hackers-accused-of-biggest-cryptocurrency-theft-of-2020-their-heists-are-now-worth-175-billion/?sh=15704a925b0b https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north... [2] https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-a-look-at-the-data-5af708f47fba https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-...