3 ms·
Your principle objection is that you don't care. Is this what argument looks like in 2023? It doesn't leave much left to work with.
by nonrandomstring 4y ago
Your principle objection is that you don't care. Is this what argument
looks like in 2023? It doesn't leave much left to work with.
- shadowgovt 4y agoIf there's no harm, there's no reason to curtail someone's freedom. It's hard to support an argument that we should change the law if the harm isn't proven, and "someone directed my computer to use more CPU cycles than it otherwise would (after I voluntarily accessed their server)" isn't a story of self-evident harm. (And that's leaving out the unsupported strong assertions that "you will eventually suffer tangible harms, loss of employment, impacted credit score, loss of medical access," which... What? Loss of employment because companies spy on me? That screams "lack of causality." As an employed tech worker in the United States, I operate under the assumption that my employer has access to my corporate inbox. Is your assertion that I could be fired for something I say there [in which case the harm is I said something damaging to my company, not that my company knows about it] or some other mechanism?).
- nonrandomstring 4y ago> It's hard to support an argument that we should change the law if the harm isn't proven But it is, shadowgvt my friend please dig deeper. It absolutely is! Over and again in multiple quality peer reviewed studies and analyses by prominent security engineers and psychologists... This "big tech = bad" thing isn't just some matter of sloppy marginal opinion. It's tediously mainstream thinking now. The only real question is what to do about it. We both know that's not easy. But at this point attacking the premise just seems like a waste of time. A fair place to start is here, with the "ledger of harms" [1] https://ledger.humanetech.com/ https://ledger.humanetech.com/