5 ms·
I'd go further and say the more power you have the less privacy you should have.
by javajosh 2y ago
I'd go further and say the more power you have the less privacy you should have.
- sirdvd 2y agoOr at least, the more public resources you manage the less privacy you should have.
- agilob 2y agoor why not both?
- repelsteeltje 2y agoSpot on. The silver lining about them clearly trying to exempt themselves is that they at least seem to be aware of the negative consequences of their proposal. So: not the right solution, but at least something that looks like a transition from blissfully ignorant -> aware of problems. Cogs are in motion, learning is happening.
- redeeman 2y agoare you crazy? it means they are aware, and WANT that for the population, but not themselves. cogs are NOT in motion to fix this for the people, they are in motion to DO this to the people.
- miohtama 2y agoThis makes harder to lie about the fact that this is a mass surveillance bill.
- account42 2y agoI don't think this stopped anyone before. Things like the US PATRIOT act were not passed because the politicians behind it didn't understand what they were doing.
- repelsteeltje 2y agoWell, I learned not to attribute to malice what could equally be attributed to incompetence. ... But I get your point
- redeeman 2y agoso lets look at this from above.. 1: a law is proposed, to solve some problem (real or otherwise is irellevant). 2: wait shiiiieet, this law kindof sucks, it could really hurt people. 3: I KNOW! lets fix it by making it not hurt us, only those we govern! you do not get to claim incompetence to get you out of what you did in step 3. (and no, not you personally, obviously)
- repelsteeltje 2y agoThe incompetence will generally get you stuck in step 1, ignorance: law looks great because designers don't see deficiencies. Step 2 is progress: now you're wittingly incompetent. Step 3 is a misguided solution to 2 but the incompetence is that designers still deeply believe that step 1 was essentially a great plan. Shielding yourself is a naive, human reaction. It isn't intrinsically malicious. This is where they slowly start realizing their good intentions result in a weapon of mass surveillance. I'm hoping for step 4 where they find a way to mitigate 2 for all people. One way would be: retract 1 altogether.
- redeeman 2y agothats just naive, they shield themselves because they understand enough to know that its bad, and they dont want it. its sorta like if i began spraying a harmful chemical on the local population because I thought genuinely that it would help reduce mosquito diseases and be a really great thing for everyone. Then I learn its really harmful to humans, so I equip myself with a hazmat suit and carry on with my plan. I do not get to claim "incompetence"
- repelsteeltje 2y agoFair enough, I suppose I'm naive and I like the analogy. You're right in claiming that wearing the hazmat suit has clear signs of competence, appreciation of the dangers. I'm (naively) hopeful that wearing it day in day out will ultimately make them feel uncomfortable, maybe guilty about their activities, change their act, reconsider spraying a harmful chemicals, etc. The incompetence I was alluding to lies in proposing these types of laws in first place. Well intended, but harmful. Understanding the dangers forces knee jerk reaction to at least make sure they themselves are safe from harm. Dumb solution, but progress made on learning about the dangers. But I say dumb as in short sighted, not malicious. If they'd thought this through they'd understand these exemptions don't protect future-thems, their loved ones or whomever else is powerless, yet needy of their (political) support.
- javajosh 2y ago>Cogs are in motion, learning is happening. They know what power is, and have demonstrated that clearly. If there is a silver lining, it's that they've revealed their knowledge and desire for asymmetry of power.
- everforward 2y agoI was going to say this. A real leader that truly believed in this would volunteer to be first in line to have it implemented on them, and be transparent about their experience (how many times did an alert fire? How did the police handle the response? etc). This is a dog and pony show by people who think they're better than the people they represent, and they must think very lowly of the people they represent indeed if they think no one will notice their shenanigans. Besides that, there have been a number of stories of politicians abusing children or possessing CSAM. If I were going to order the list of whose PC's get checked for CSAM first, politicians would be pretty high up there. Probably right after Hollywood, and right before the uber-rich.