> the idea is that it's more secure and more respectful of privacy than alternatives, which are virtually ubiquitous and mostly in the hand of US tech and finan

> the idea is that it's more secure and more respectful of privacy than alternatives, which are virtually ubiquitous and mostly in the hand of US tech and finance companies. i think we can’t have an argument because you’re seeing the idea rather than the implementation and all the mutations it will undergo. there’s no orwellian system in existence now, except in the hands of intelligence agencies, that set out with explicit goal to do evil. they start nobly, but with such unfettered access to personal information that only supernatural self-restraint can stay the hand of abuse. so maybe let’s talk about this system in a couple of years time. i preambled my submission with an acknowledgment that democracy is among the most abused terms. i guess all you need is to throw a popular election somewhere in there and voila there’s your democracy, however far away it is removed from the decision making body.