5 ms·
Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financi
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are applied in ways that don’t benefit them.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoThat's how it works. People support policies that are beneficial and don't support policies that are harmful. Privacy is just one component of this evaluation. If we demand absolute privacy with no government oversight, even by warrants, the cost of increased crime will be larger than the marginal benefit from increased privacy. If we demand that nobody can hold somebody else's data, the cost to businesses that rely on their employees getting information from their company's logged communications will be larger than the marginal benefit of increased privacy.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoIt’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an acceptable option.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoNo, they're consistent on what matters. Privacy isn't the be-all and end-all of utility. It's merely one component. Being able to take back money stolen by a crook is something that most people value, and they are happy to pay the privacy cost to get it. A foolish consistency (insisting on absolute consistency for the wrong concept) is the hobgoblin of little minds.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoYou are free to sacrifice your own privacy. This discussion is about whether you have the right to forcefully sacrifice mine. You’re only consistent in doing what benefits you, even if that means your support for a policy depends on who is involved and not what it does.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoYes, I am free to sacrifice yours. That's how laws work. Try to proclaim yourself a sovereign citizen and tell a judge that warrants don't apply to you if you don't believe me. If you don't like laws, there are lawless places like Somalia for you to call home. I support policies based on what they do. That includes weighing everything they do, not just their effect on privacy.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoDoes “it’s the law” apply to all laws? Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people? Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any different. You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. We’ve already established that.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoI presented a consistent idea. Net benefit. It's a consistency that actually makes sense instead of ending up with crooks taking money from everyone and people being unable to stop it because they couldn't understand the concept of laws. > You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. Yes, I support less privacy for people being investigated for crimes. Are you really unfamiliar with the concept of a warrant? Everything I've said is really basic stuff, and it's truly mind-boggling that I have to explain it at all.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
- boredpeter 3y agoYes the ultra wealthy shouldn’t be able to conceal wealth that gives them immense power to control a so called democratic and free society. Regular people without that same wealth and power should have some amount of privacy from their government. It’s not impossible to hold those two beliefs without being a hypocrite.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoWhile you're running away from that other yes or no question, I might as well try asking you this one - do you support privacy?