4 ms·

Worth noting that there's no security in a system that abusively collects your data. That goes for children as well.

• walrus01 2mo ago
  Or guarantee that even if you provide such data to a nice, friendly, democratically run and ethically managed administration, that some future regime change to a completely different group of people won't result in catastrophic misuse.
  • King-Aaron 2mo ago
    Which is no longer a hypothetical
  • switchbak 2mo ago
    This is the issue I have with most of my well meaning but somewhat politically uninformed friends. The idea of “wouldn’t it be good if …” (idealized scenario), is never followed up with a “yes, but …” (realistic evaluation of how politics actually works). Yes it might actually work out ok if a mythical benevolent dictator could manage things with infinite precision and unlimited compassion. I would imagine that has never happened at any reasonable scale. The Conservative folks seem to phrase this as a desire to “keep government small” - which always seemed a little clunky given the stakes and track record of these governments.
    • spawarotti 2mo ago
      > is never followed up with a “yes, but …” (realistic evaluation of how politics actually works). OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all? When is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government?
      • paulryanrogers 2mo ago
        > OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all? Conservatives seem to be fine with mafia rule, so long as the don has the correct party affiliation. > When is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government? Mob rule doesn't with very well as a defacto government, or oligarchy. Nor food and drug safety or national defense. Some things just have to be tackled by society as a larger group. Ideally as locally as possible, but not so locally that minorities are crushed or rule becomes petty and micromanaged.
        • kraken_cult 2mo ago
          US is currently recovering (fever breaking) from the petty and micromanaged stage. We haven't been coherent as a nation for like 20+ years.
          • Finbel 2mo ago
            Seen from the outside, the US seemed a lot more coherent pre-Trump.
      • Terr_ 2mo ago
        > OK, but following this logic, shouldn't we disband the government altogether and have mafias rule us all? Only if "following this logic" means "extrapolate to an unreasonable extreme." Compare: 1. "Just eat healthy food and you'll be healthy!" 2. "Yes, but [things are complex]" 3. "Following that logic, we should just eat trash."
        • spawarotti 2mo ago
          I am still curious: when is it acceptable to hope that something is actually going to work well enough when handed over to the government?
          • CookieCrisp 2mo ago
    • slopinthebag 2mo ago
      Let’s keep the “gain as much power and grow as big as possible with whatever means necessary” machine as small as possible.
    • Cthulhu_ 2mo ago
      > Yes it might actually work out ok if a mythical benevolent dictator could manage things with infinite precision and unlimited compassion. I would imagine that has never happened at any reasonable scale. That's because people aren't recognizing me as their benevolent god-emperor yet.
      • account42 2mo ago
        I'm sure the cosmic horror reputation isn't helping your PR campaign.
      • NoGravitas 2mo ago
        All Hail!
  • andsoitis 2mo ago
    > Or guarantee Not possible. You can strengthen defenses but you cannot guarantee it can withstand any possible, dynamic and adaptive attack strategies. So what you say is impossible to do.
  • spwa4 2mo ago
    That's partly because congress, including state congresses and judges/dept of justice just don't care about that. They are totally unable to see either the consequences of their own imperfection or even just limits to their power. A LOT of damage is done that way.
• matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  He who gives up freedom for security ends up with neither.
  • inigyou 2mo ago
    So does he who gives up security for freedom. All things must be balanced.
    • matheusmoreira 2mo ago
      "Kids are being harmed, so let's end privacy online and force everyone to ID" is not balance, it is the panopticon. Hilariously, even the baroness cited in the article believes it's extremism. I've even seen her defend privacy and VPNs. She claims she's backing deanonymization because nobody is doing anything else. The ones who want a surveillance state are only too happy to oblige. Balance is expecting parents to actually parent their children instead of offloading all the responsibility to the state.
• account42 2mo ago
  There is security for those in control of the government.