3 ms·
> With some select authorities being exempt from this due to national security. I fear your carveout would quickly become an "Inner Party" situation, with thos
by Spoom 4y ago
> With some select authorities being exempt from this due to national security.
I fear your carveout would quickly become an "Inner Party" situation, with those with real power declaring themselves exempt due to "national security" reasons. Imagine then that anyone in any position of authority but not real power would be subject to the surveillance as an "Outer Party" member.
I get that the intent is to show the people in charge the negative consequences of such policies, but I don't think that's the worst that could come of this.
- AvAurora 4y agoYou understand that there is already an inner party, not in a conspiracy sense, but in a privacy sense. Yo have to actually argue why partial transparency is way worse than full obscurity.
- rhodorhoades 4y agoThat’s exactly the kind of fallacy these politicians would use to argue against this kind of thing ;)
- whythre 4y agoThe idea that the powerful would find a way to circumvent or corrupt such a rule is a significant problem; it isn’t a fallacy. Fallacy =/= thing I don’t like.