4 ms·

Ah, good ol’ slippery slope arguments

eastbound 4y ago
“You will never have to show a QR code to enter a restaurant.” — France’s health minister in 2020.
cjbgkagh 4y ago
Usually they allow inflation to slowly bracket creep which has the same effect. For example the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 sets reporting at $10K which would be ~$80K today. I've seen legislation for fines that has built in modifiers for inflation so the government knows how account for it.
flandish 4y ago
The slippery slope is, quite truly, how nation states operate. If they were worried abt terrorism, they’d stop terrorists. But this “change” … treats innocent people with the brush they use for terrorists… it’s a slippery slope by design.
retinaros 4y ago
dont worry others will fight so that you too can be free to take your blue pill
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mdp2021 4y ago
Yes. Good old "look where the trend is going, foresee the risks". Ah, remembering the surprise of upset people when they did not raise a suspect in front of bank clerks telling you "It's contactless, limited risk, 25u per transaction" (and already then the child-basic retort is "Times by how many transactions?"), and then were reached by the bank information that "owing to progress the limit is now raised to 50u / 100u / 150u ..."
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Are you complaining that the amount you could do in a single contactless transaction went up? I can't tell what you're arguing. If you're talking about fees I thought those were capped a while ago and haven't increased.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > the amount you could do in a single contactless transaction (Certainly not me: I will not accept embedded fixed NFC - not in documents, not in bank cards, not in general.) Yes. I will rephrase: people were told, "Here are the details of the system: if anything goes wrong, it can only be for 25u". Some people trusted that as a fixed contract. Then, some received the (expectable) communications that the formerly established limit will change. Depending on the country and system, some doubled, some were raised to 150u (if I remember well), with promises to arrive soon at 500u (if I remember well). Other details are not different in nature: if the PSD2 imposed that the via-PIN "signature" has to be provided every 5 transactions, that does not mean that at a later stage this will not be modified to 500. The point is: if it is intrinsic to the system that the configuration can be globally changed, expect it. About the logic: you have to foresee them "slopes", when you see they /are/ "slippery". The fallacy is in assuming the future. It is on the opposite _duly_ to consider the chances.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      But I hope you realize you're citing a type of payment system being repeatedly made more convenient to support the idea of a payment system being repeatedly made less convenient. And I don't know why people would expect a security feature to never allow more. Also is "u" standing for a specific currency, or what?

“You will never have to show a QR code to enter a restaurant.” — France’s health minister in 2020.

Usually they allow inflation to slowly bracket creep which has the same effect. For example the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 sets reporting at $10K which would be ~$80K today. I've seen legislation for fines that has built in modifiers for inflation so the government knows how account for it.

flandish 4y ago

The slippery slope is, quite truly, how nation states operate. If they were worried abt terrorism, they’d stop terrorists. But this “change” … treats innocent people with the brush they use for terrorists… it’s a slippery slope by design.

retinaros 4y ago

dont worry others will fight so that you too can be free to take your blue pill

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mdp2021 4y ago

Yes. Good old "look where the trend is going, foresee the risks". Ah, remembering the surprise of upset people when they did not raise a suspect in front of bank clerks telling you "It's contactless, limited risk, 25u per transaction" (and already then the child-basic retort is "Times by how many transactions?"), and then were reached by the bank information that "owing to progress the limit is now raised to 50u / 100u / 150u ..."

Dylan16807 4y ago
Are you complaining that the amount you could do in a single contactless transaction went up? I can't tell what you're arguing. If you're talking about fees I thought those were capped a while ago and haven't increased.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > the amount you could do in a single contactless transaction (Certainly not me: I will not accept embedded fixed NFC - not in documents, not in bank cards, not in general.) Yes. I will rephrase: people were told, "Here are the details of the system: if anything goes wrong, it can only be for 25u". Some people trusted that as a fixed contract. Then, some received the (expectable) communications that the formerly established limit will change. Depending on the country and system, some doubled, some were raised to 150u (if I remember well), with promises to arrive soon at 500u (if I remember well). Other details are not different in nature: if the PSD2 imposed that the via-PIN "signature" has to be provided every 5 transactions, that does not mean that at a later stage this will not be modified to 500. The point is: if it is intrinsic to the system that the configuration can be globally changed, expect it. About the logic: you have to foresee them "slopes", when you see they /are/ "slippery". The fallacy is in assuming the future. It is on the opposite _duly_ to consider the chances.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    But I hope you realize you're citing a type of payment system being repeatedly made more convenient to support the idea of a payment system being repeatedly made less convenient. And I don't know why people would expect a security feature to never allow more. Also is "u" standing for a specific currency, or what?