3 ms·

The title is not very diplomatic: it suggest that privacy is worth sacrificing human lives. It is, to some extent, but suggesting it out loud is often liable t

The title is not very diplomatic: it suggest that privacy is worth sacrificing human lives. It is, to some extent, but suggesting it out loud is often liable to a "think of the children" knee jerk reaction.

icebraining 13y ago
Well, I don't think you can accuse Stallman of being diplomatic.
dllthomas 13y ago
Privacy is worth sacrificing human lives, for some amount of privacy and some number of lives... However, that's not even the biggest problem with the knee-jerk response: it's not a trade being offered. If you could guarantee me 3000 lives saved in exchange for more invasion of my privacy and that of my billion closest friends (assuming they agreed), I'd have to think about it. But no! 3000 lives were lost, and that is tragic, and it's more tragic that the fear it caused was then exploited to consolidate power. It was consolidated in the hands of people who are probably mostly reasonable people, and who are probably mostly trying to keep us safe, but there is no guarantee as to the number of lives saved (although "lives lost to terrorism in the 10 years prior when you didn't have these powers" helps us provide some upper bounds...), and moreover some of those people we're being asked to trust will prove not to be good people, power will be abused, and it might well cost more lives than it saves: governments have killed overwhelmingly more people than insurgents and terrorists over the past 100 years.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  We're indeed talking sunk costs. By the way, you could even argue that some measures, such as increased airport "security", indirectly killed people, who took their more risky cars instead of just flying. This title reminds me a quote from Ultimate Spiderman: "Your uncle snuffs. And you stop basket ball!?". Seems rather… blunt.

3 ms·

The title is not very diplomatic: it suggest that privacy is worth sacrificing human lives. It is, to some extent, but suggesting it out loud is often liable t

by loup-vaillant 13y ago

icebraining 13y ago
Well, I don't think you can accuse Stallman of being diplomatic.
dllthomas 13y ago
Privacy is worth sacrificing human lives, for some amount of privacy and some number of lives... However, that's not even the biggest problem with the knee-jerk response: it's not a trade being offered. If you could guarantee me 3000 lives saved in exchange for more invasion of my privacy and that of my billion closest friends (assuming they agreed), I'd have to think about it. But no! 3000 lives were lost, and that is tragic, and it's more tragic that the fear it caused was then exploited to consolidate power. It was consolidated in the hands of people who are probably mostly reasonable people, and who are probably mostly trying to keep us safe, but there is no guarantee as to the number of lives saved (although "lives lost to terrorism in the 10 years prior when you didn't have these powers" helps us provide some upper bounds...), and moreover some of those people we're being asked to trust will prove not to be good people, power will be abused, and it might well cost more lives than it saves: governments have killed overwhelmingly more people than insurgents and terrorists over the past 100 years.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  We're indeed talking sunk costs. By the way, you could even argue that some measures, such as increased airport "security", indirectly killed people, who took their more risky cars instead of just flying. This title reminds me a quote from Ultimate Spiderman: "Your uncle snuffs. And you stop basket ball!?". Seems rather… blunt.