4 ms·
So well. And what if terrorist or people with evil goal or activity use this system ? These types of services solve only a little piece of the equation. I now
by chmike 13y ago
So well. And what if terrorist or people with evil goal or activity use this system ?
These types of services solve only a little piece of the equation.
I now also tend to think that people focusing only on privacy are individualists. A good example of individualism is defending the right to freely own and carry weapons. For rational, well balanced and honnest peoples, it sounds right and harmless as a mean of defense. Like privacy. But it is well know and demonstrated by the numbers that pople are abusing this right and using the guns for bad goals. The trust given to them, not only by the authority, but from nightbours and all honnest citizen as well has been betrayed. In europe where guns are banned and under very tight control, life is much safer. This is very counter intuitive. See ?
I now tend to assume, privacy is very similar. If we give up privacy we may become much safer. Of course there must be exceptions, but with tight controls as exist for weapons in europe. Privacy should be available to lawyers and doctors for instance.
Finally, a last missing piece of the solution is a feedback loop to control the controllers so that no one can abuse the system, and this includes the government.
- nilved 13y ago> If we give up privacy we may become much safer. Cut the propaganda.
- chmike 13y agoI expressed my current opinion with it's rational. I don't see yours or anything having a vague resemblance to a counter argument.
- 00rion 13y agoI somewhat agree. However, it's incredibly dangerous for everyone to give up privacy while the government continues doing things secretly. If we all must be forced to be exposed, so should the government.
- chmike 13y agoYes, I understand but I honnestly don't see how it can be possible to detect misbehaviors or threats without surveilliance. There is a dilemma there I can't yet dealth with. Surveilliance methods are easy to defeat once you know how they work and where they are applied. This is why they are kept secret. Maybe the cummunication capacity and the terrorist threat has developped to fast for taking the time tothink of the optimal approach in terme of efficiency and respect of privacy and rights. The strategy used so far is not ok. I fully agree and we need methods to ensure there is no abuse like for the civil forfeiture law. This is the role of the feedback control loop. With such a loop Abuse or inadequacy cab be detected ASAP and corrected ASAP. Secrecy, and keeping the control to some arbitrary authority, is preventing to have such objective and independent feedback control loop. This is in my opinion the true problem in what happens with the NSA and in Europe too.