3 ms·
You're talking about a theoretical world where absolutely no-one has any privacy, even presidents, security guards, etc. In the real world, there is lots of as
by infinity0 12y ago
You're talking about a theoretical world where absolutely no-one has any privacy, even presidents, security guards, etc.
In the real world, there is lots of asymmetry. This asymmetry is absolutely critical when making ethical considerations.
- LLWM 12y agoYes, I'm talking about the world that we should work towards realizing. Wasn't that the entire point of this discussion? Obviously it will take some time. Even if we recorded everything everyone ever did starting 50 years from now, which is still quite a stretch, it would likely take another 150 before we could be certain that every living person had been under surveillance for their entire lives.
- infinity0 12y agoNo, that wasn't the entire point of this discussion. You give no consideration on how to achieve your supposed scenario, whereas everyone else has considered how the ways of doing this proposed by the state, would lead to horrific crimes.
- LLWM 12y agoI thought your whole objection was that these acts were not crimes, but should be.