2 ms·
> I don't find the surveillance to be intrusive, so it's acceptable. Interesting opinion for somebody with nick called 'shadowgovt'. I get your point, but even
by saiya-jin 5y ago
> I don't find the surveillance to be intrusive, so it's acceptable.
Interesting opinion for somebody with nick called 'shadowgovt'. I get your point, but even as that its shouldn't be OK in any meaningful way. It can easily end up as a slippery slope that is extremely hard if not impossible to come back from, and the intrusion to ones privacy goes deeper and deeper till you have absolutely 0.
Nobody alive in this world has absolutely nothing to hide. Maybe ass warts or shape of sub-par penis, some rather unusual preferences or opinions on XYZ, body odor when sweating or locations of body hair, whatever.
We shouldn't have OK categories for intrusions to our most private parts of our lives, period. Terrorists, ad optimization, blahblah whatever, just nope. At least disabled by default and if one is brave enough just go ahead and enable it to get that 5$ discount. I feel very strongly that I don't want my children to live in a world like that, how can we fuckup with such a basic and important item.
- shadowgovt 5y agoI don't think we disagree on anything other than whether "the sites we read on a global telecommunications network" count as "most private parts of our lives." Every page accessed is a two-way conversation between you and a stranger's property. That's pretty shifting philosophical sand to ground an argument on the privacy of those conversations in. Why does the stranger not have the right to let a third-party know you talked to them?