> not on whether the current proponents happen to have ulterior motives.
replyEven if the current proponents have no ulterior motive, and in fact live and die having done nothing negative with such power, it does not stop the next group in power from extending and abusing power, don't base laws on temporary trust of politicians.
Calling out the ulterior motives can help clear the deck to focus on what is right or wrong, without as much emotional manipulation in the picture.
replyOne problem with that is that it’s difficult to prove motives. So you’re on shaky and disputable ground. It’s much better to point out how the proposed mechanisms are prone to be misused, which is independent of current motives. Get rid of the shaky ground. Saying “these are disingenuous people proposing this” is exactly an attempt at emotional manipulation, in the sense of an ad hominem fallacy.
replySo invading the privacy of millions of people, even if it's just automatic scans for some specific thing is a right thing? Does this apply to mandatory drug tests for everyone everywhere? How about drug and weapon seeking drones, doing daily checks in every apartment everywhere? How about mandatory AI powered microphones everywhere that would detect threats, blackmail, any talk about anything illegal, etc.?
replyIf you take a 1000 random people of the street now,how many of them are sharing CSAM via icloud?
If you take a 1000 random politicians, how many of them have corruption scandals? Why not start with them instead, a bodycam and an AI powered microphone that would detect corruption automatically... let them lead as an example, before they apply the laws onto "the rest of us".
You misread what I wrote. My comment is against the argument used, not against what is being argued for. Using the wrong argument diminishes one’s position. I’d prefer the stance against surveillance to not be diminished by such arguments.
reply