3 ms·

But don’t you understand, it will be so convenient. Just imagine the convenience! Are you opposed to convenience? Frankly, you’re just being paranoid. It’s pos

But don’t you understand, it will be so convenient. Just imagine the convenience! Are you opposed to convenience? Frankly, you’re just being paranoid. It’s possible that mandatory digital ID could be abused, but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. So why are you so worried? You’re already tracked everywhere you go, and many countries already have this system. It seems to work well there for keeping people in line. Do you have something to hide? Seems a little suspicious, no? (Did I miss any talking points?)

array_key_first 1y ago
> officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. This one is my favorite. I don't know if it's just unthinkable naivety or a misunderstanding of how bad actors work, but it boggles my mind that this type of reasoning is often one of the top arguments I hear.
- baobun 1y ago
  The post office scandal wasn't that long ago, even. How can you blame people for doubting the ability to keep integrity of the system and that it won't be abused and that any abuse or incidents won't be covered up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Muromec 1y ago
>(Did I miss any talking points?) Silently pointing out to the whole world that does this already and nothing scary happened that can't happen otherwise. The only reason we have ids is the borders and codified inequality anyway. I can't go to certain places with one id and can go there with the other. In some specific places I can go in, but would not be able to get out. Somehow I haven't seen a lot of intersection between people who believe we should not have borders and people who believe we should not have ids.
octo888 1y ago
> but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it That one is perfect lol. It speaks to the baffling immense amount of trust people still have in institutions. I mean, people are still outright alarmed that the BBC resort to clickbait or quietly change articles after publication. I mean, it's been a good 10-15 years - stop trusting them.

array_key_first 1y ago

> officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. This one is my favorite. I don't know if it's just unthinkable naivety or a misunderstanding of how bad actors work, but it boggles my mind that this type of reasoning is often one of the top arguments I hear.

baobun 1y ago
The post office scandal wasn't that long ago, even. How can you blame people for doubting the ability to keep integrity of the system and that it won't be abused and that any abuse or incidents won't be covered up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Muromec 1y ago

>(Did I miss any talking points?) Silently pointing out to the whole world that does this already and nothing scary happened that can't happen otherwise. The only reason we have ids is the borders and codified inequality anyway. I can't go to certain places with one id and can go there with the other. In some specific places I can go in, but would not be able to get out. Somehow I haven't seen a lot of intersection between people who believe we should not have borders and people who believe we should not have ids.

octo888 1y ago

> but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it That one is perfect lol. It speaks to the baffling immense amount of trust people still have in institutions. I mean, people are still outright alarmed that the BBC resort to clickbait or quietly change articles after publication. I mean, it's been a good 10-15 years - stop trusting them.