4 ms·

You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on

by babesh 5y ago

You were saying that this is a slippery slope argument which implies that it is a fallacious argument. I am saying that isn’t the case. We have been sliding on this slope for decades which deems that the argument is valid and not fallacious. From Wikipedia’s entry for slippery slope: “The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground” This isn’t a middle ground. Every year the supposed middle ground shifts toward less and less privacy. Notice the slippery slope? The very presence of this means that the supposed middle ground just slipped further? Isn’t that obvious?

zepto 5y ago
You’re ignoring the sentence after I mention the slippery slope, where I say: > These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it. I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.
- babesh 5y ago
  I have read through your comments on the article. You are the bogeyman. Good bye. You are the one promoting the latest false middle ground along an actual sliding slope. That is disingenuous.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Can you describe the middle ground that I have ignored? What disingenuous argument have I made? The only thing I have argued for is for hackers to attempt technical solutions that are more to their liking than Apple’s, because arguments are not preventing the slide.
    - babesh 5y ago
      I am saying that you are promoting a slippery ground falsely as middle ground. Basically the argument I hear from you is “If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground.” The problem I have with it is the “let’s build it anyway”. That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Don’t be an apologist.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - zepto 5y ago
        > If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground. This looks a completely made up position that has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you can find a comment where I am advocating building back doors, I invite you to quote it. > That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? If it was clear you’d be able to support it with a quote. I’m pretty sure you can’t. > Don’t be an apologist. It doesn’t seem like you have been following my argument, so it’s unclear why you’d stoop to a personal attack.
        babesh 5y ago
        Sure, I am quite willing to hang you with your own words. zepto “As far as I can see: 1. This is a serious attempt to build a privacy preserving solution to child pornography.” “ > The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. <- this is you quoting me I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning. They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them.” So according to your very own words, this ISN’T a serious attempt to build a privacy supporting solution to child pornography. First, it isn’t a solution because as you stated, it won’t actually catch anyone. Second, it isn’t serious because it was never intended to catch anyone. “2. The complaints are all slippery slope arguments that governments will force Apple to abuse the mechanism. These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.” So according to your words these are not slippery slope arguments (the invalid argument sense) since, as you state, if you build a back door, bad people will use it. Don’t subtly use negative connotations to try to advance your argument. Next you disingenuously frame the problem as a conflict between privacy and child pornography. That is an unsupported dichotomy. “ However: Child pornography and the related abuse is widely thought of as a massive problem, that is facilitated by encrypted communication and digital photography. People do care about this issue. ‘Think of the children’ is a great pretext for increasing surveillance, because it isn’t an irrational fear.” Lastly you call for better solutions for a “solution” that actually isn’t a solution. “So: where are the proposals for a better solution?” “ Apple’s solution is the best on offer. ” Another unsupported dichotomy and a false assignment of responsibility. If this solution is bad, then toss it out. You don’t need another proposal in its place. You don’t need to deploy this backdoor in the meantime. It is NOT our responsibility to do the FBI’s job. It is THEIR responsibility to come up with better proposals. If you do actually want a solution, my recommendation is to concentrate on real harm like child molestation and child trafficking. Trace how children have been trafficked historically. See how you can shut that down. I feel dirty analyzing all the dirty tricks that you employed. Are you a politician or do you work for one? Work on policy?

by babesh 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

You’re ignoring the sentence after I mention the slippery slope, where I say: > These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it. I’m not the one ignoring the middle ground.

babesh 5y ago
I have read through your comments on the article. You are the bogeyman. Good bye. You are the one promoting the latest false middle ground along an actual sliding slope. That is disingenuous.
- zepto 5y ago
  Can you describe the middle ground that I have ignored? What disingenuous argument have I made? The only thing I have argued for is for hackers to attempt technical solutions that are more to their liking than Apple’s, because arguments are not preventing the slide.
  - babesh 5y ago
    I am saying that you are promoting a slippery ground falsely as middle ground. Basically the argument I hear from you is “If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground.” The problem I have with it is the “let’s build it anyway”. That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Don’t be an apologist.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zepto 5y ago
      > If you build a back door, then people will use it. So let’s build it anyway because it is a middle ground. This looks a completely made up position that has nothing to do with anything I have said. If you can find a comment where I am advocating building back doors, I invite you to quote it. > That seems as clear as day. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? If it was clear you’d be able to support it with a quote. I’m pretty sure you can’t. > Don’t be an apologist. It doesn’t seem like you have been following my argument, so it’s unclear why you’d stoop to a personal attack.
      - babesh 5y ago
        Sure, I am quite willing to hang you with your own words. zepto “As far as I can see: 1. This is a serious attempt to build a privacy preserving solution to child pornography.” “ > The more sophisticated child molesters out there will find out about what Apple is doing and quickly avoid it. <- this is you quoting me I think this is exactly what Apple wants to he the result of their their iMessage scanning. They are not in this to make arrests. They just want parents to feel safe letting children use their products. Driving predators to use different tools is fine with them.” So according to your very own words, this ISN’T a serious attempt to build a privacy supporting solution to child pornography. First, it isn’t a solution because as you stated, it won’t actually catch anyone. Second, it isn’t serious because it was never intended to catch anyone. “2. The complaints are all slippery slope arguments that governments will force Apple to abuse the mechanism. These are clearly real concerns and even Tim Cook admits that if you build a back door, bad people will use it.” So according to your words these are not slippery slope arguments (the invalid argument sense) since, as you state, if you build a back door, bad people will use it. Don’t subtly use negative connotations to try to advance your argument. Next you disingenuously frame the problem as a conflict between privacy and child pornography. That is an unsupported dichotomy. “ However: Child pornography and the related abuse is widely thought of as a massive problem, that is facilitated by encrypted communication and digital photography. People do care about this issue. ‘Think of the children’ is a great pretext for increasing surveillance, because it isn’t an irrational fear.” Lastly you call for better solutions for a “solution” that actually isn’t a solution. “So: where are the proposals for a better solution?” “ Apple’s solution is the best on offer. ” Another unsupported dichotomy and a false assignment of responsibility. If this solution is bad, then toss it out. You don’t need another proposal in its place. You don’t need to deploy this backdoor in the meantime. It is NOT our responsibility to do the FBI’s job. It is THEIR responsibility to come up with better proposals. If you do actually want a solution, my recommendation is to concentrate on real harm like child molestation and child trafficking. Trace how children have been trafficked historically. See how you can shut that down. I feel dirty analyzing all the dirty tricks that you employed. Are you a politician or do you work for one? Work on policy?