3 ms·
It seems to me the article takes the same approach to prevent someone from stealing your car. You can take certain measures like locking your doors and installi
by at-fates-hands 13y ago
It seems to me the article takes the same approach to prevent someone from stealing your car. You can take certain measures like locking your doors and installing a car alarm which will thwart most thieves who are looking for an easy mark. However, if a professional car thief wants to steal your car, guess what? They're going to steal your car.
In a sense, it makes it harder for government to eavesdrop on you, but if they really want to get your information, they can.
All your doing by using these tools is making your private information harder to get at. Which I don't think is a bad thing. Outside of the government, these tool will do wonders to thwart identity thieves and other malicious hackers from getting at your information so it's not completely worthless to use them.
- DerpObvious 13y agoBut if you're trying to stop mass car theft by people simply opening the doors and driving off, taking the keys out and locking the door is pretty effective. Sure, professionals could still target specific cars, but it would cut in to their potential for mass theft, by simply making each one take longer.
- vbuterin 13y ago> It seems to me the article takes the same approach to prevent someone from stealing your car. You can take certain measures like locking your doors and installing a car alarm which will thwart most thieves who are looking for an easy mark. However, if a professional car thief wants to steal your car, guess what? They're going to steal your car. You can make the same point about government laws. And, as it turns out, it seems like the government solutions actually fail faster than the technological ones: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582004-crime-plunging-rich-world-keep-it-down-governments-should-focus-prevention-not http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582004-crime-plungin...