9 ms·
This is an absolutely Big Brother mandate. Bad actors and foreign threats will always exist, implying that privacy will always be criminalized under this paradi
by ETH_start 3y ago
This is an absolutely Big Brother mandate. Bad actors and foreign threats will always exist, implying that privacy will always be criminalized under this paradigm whereby the presence of a threat justifies invading people's privacy.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoNo perfect solutions exist so nothing should be done. Gotcha.
- whatshisface 3y agoNothing should be "done" about the fact I don't know your name.
- forgetfreeman 3y ago1. you aren't a sovereign nation so tf are you even on about. 2. I'm not engaged in any activities that warrant scrutiny, so again tf are you even on about.
- ronsor 3y agoDoing "something" because something must be done is not logical either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
- forgetfreeman 3y agoNeither is shitting on someone else's proposal when you have nothing to replace it with.
- salawat 3y agoNot doing something is always an option. Not all things need be made. In point of fact, there are many things that should not be made.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoIt's true, our society is well on it's way to mastering sitting on it's hands when problems present themselves because there's always someone who's figured out how to make money off the issue and rolling up a blob of useful idiots to astroturf on their behalf has become so efficient it borders on overt weaponization of human stupidity.
- ETH_start 3y agoThere is a huge amount that can be done in the solution space outside of "criminalization of privacy".
- forgetfreeman 3y agoThere -is- no privacy, why does this still keep coming up in conversations literally decades after it became trivial for AD AGENCIES much less sovereign governments to identify an individual online? Are you part of an astroturf campaign or something?
- hooverd 3y agoWhy are you anti reclaiming privacy?
- forgetfreeman 3y agoFor the same reasons I'm against flat earthers as a concept. The premise is nonsensical from a practical standpoint, you'd have to completely dismantle the internet economy AND re-engineer the network from the ground up. Furthermore, continued rhetoric on this point provides cover for bad actors without meaningfully impacting the privacy landscape for run of the mill users.
- ETH_start 3y agoClassifying all erosion of privacy as equivalent is dangerously reductionist. Being able to track someone's internet activity by buying information from commercial data brokers is not the same as a government forcing everyone to follow a regimented disclosure process, under pain of imprisonment. In the former, there is considerably more consent, some level of flexibility in how data is disclosed and some possibility of user mitigation. In the latter, none of these things are possible. It's a straight jacket for society, with the net effect being massively less fundamental liberty and more centralization of power around the state. Just look at mandated KYC processes in finance, and the enormous costs they impose — in time wasted and intimate private information involuntarily exposed — on hundreds of millions of law-abiding consumers and businesses, while massively constraining the space for innovation in finance, by mandating a regimented PII disclose process that precludes the development of better processes for providing safety and accountability. This is not the same as people's voluntarily disclosed financial data being available to buy from commercial data brokers, that incurs none of these costs on society.