4 ms·

> If I propose putting an unobstructed streaming camera in every room of every house, that would also solve a lot of problems. This line of rhetoric doesn't he

> If I propose putting an unobstructed streaming camera in every room of every house, that would also solve a lot of problems. This line of rhetoric doesn't help the conversation.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
What does line of rhetoric mean? The example was to show the poor logic of “you should have an alternative solution if you oppose this solution”. One can simply prefer the downsides of the status quo rather than different downsides of a change.
- riversflow 5y ago
  So you prefer your perceived absolute privacy (how sure are you that the NSA doesnt have a backdoor in the baseband?) over the enslavement of over 10,000’s of people world wide each year?
  - BlargMcLarg 5y ago
    That's not the comparison you can make. You're going to have to sell us a bit harder on how fully breaking the commoner's privacy is going to ensure those enslavements won't happen. Until then, it's all assumptions. More reasonable is you're going to make things maybe a little safer for kids to do stupid things you could educate them on, at the cost of trading any potential privacy on the internet. You'd even have to cover private channels, as the mere threat of blackmail would be enough to cause problems.
    - riversflow 5y ago
      You make the assumption that the commoner’s privacy will actually be broken, make it so that using the backdoor requires a warrant, and can only be used legally on suspected traffickers. Rapists and slavers shouldn’t have access to military grade encryption, full stop.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        >You make the assumption that the commoner’s privacy will actually be broken Because it already has been proven to have been broken, repeatedly. We have the Snowden documents, PRISM wiretapping, FISA courts, Guantanamo Bay, multiple CIA programs violating human rights', police misconduct that goes unpunished even with hard proof, prosecutors that withhold evidence and are not punished (even protected), and the list goes on and on and on and on.
        riversflow 5y ago
        That's my point though, you can't break something that's already broken. We don't have privacy from the USG, and we should stop acting like we do. If you accept that the USG can already snoop on you as they like, why wouldn't you want to make it so that they can go after human traffickers?
      - timschmidt 5y ago
        https://newamericadotorg.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Coalition_Response_Letter_-_Encryption_DOJ_event_and_letter_to_Facebook.pdf https://newamericadotorg.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Coalitio...
- sitkack 5y ago
  Arguing by using absurdist hypothetical situations. It encourages reasoning by analogy and straw man fallacies.
ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
really? I found it quite illustrative as another example of what results from a "means justify the ends" philosophy

> If I propose putting an unobstructed streaming camera in every room of every house, that would also solve a lot of problems. This line of rhetoric doesn't help the conversation.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

What does line of rhetoric mean? The example was to show the poor logic of “you should have an alternative solution if you oppose this solution”. One can simply prefer the downsides of the status quo rather than different downsides of a change.

riversflow 5y ago
So you prefer your perceived absolute privacy (how sure are you that the NSA doesnt have a backdoor in the baseband?) over the enslavement of over 10,000’s of people world wide each year?
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  That's not the comparison you can make. You're going to have to sell us a bit harder on how fully breaking the commoner's privacy is going to ensure those enslavements won't happen. Until then, it's all assumptions. More reasonable is you're going to make things maybe a little safer for kids to do stupid things you could educate them on, at the cost of trading any potential privacy on the internet. You'd even have to cover private channels, as the mere threat of blackmail would be enough to cause problems.
  - riversflow 5y ago
    You make the assumption that the commoner’s privacy will actually be broken, make it so that using the backdoor requires a warrant, and can only be used legally on suspected traffickers. Rapists and slavers shouldn’t have access to military grade encryption, full stop.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      >You make the assumption that the commoner’s privacy will actually be broken Because it already has been proven to have been broken, repeatedly. We have the Snowden documents, PRISM wiretapping, FISA courts, Guantanamo Bay, multiple CIA programs violating human rights', police misconduct that goes unpunished even with hard proof, prosecutors that withhold evidence and are not punished (even protected), and the list goes on and on and on and on.
      - riversflow 5y ago
        That's my point though, you can't break something that's already broken. We don't have privacy from the USG, and we should stop acting like we do. If you accept that the USG can already snoop on you as they like, why wouldn't you want to make it so that they can go after human traffickers?
    - timschmidt 5y ago
      https://newamericadotorg.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Coalition_Response_Letter_-_Encryption_DOJ_event_and_letter_to_Facebook.pdf https://newamericadotorg.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Coalitio...
sitkack 5y ago
Arguing by using absurdist hypothetical situations. It encourages reasoning by analogy and straw man fallacies.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

really? I found it quite illustrative as another example of what results from a "means justify the ends" philosophy