Using public safety as a cudgel to mandate adherence to any technology is a nonstarter.
replyThe imposition is huge. We’re talking about privacy, movement and its relationships with housing/work/family management/safety.
At the very least, it needs to be plainly stated that this concept is not being studied out of curiosity. A few companies have a gigantic investment in seeing massive, government-facilitated adoption that creates guaranteed customers and gated entry.
i'm kinda hating how privacy is becoming a boogeyman to oppose literally anything. i'm predicting that public will catch hold of this rhetoric eventually.
replyliterally any. single. thing. gets opposed on privacy grounds. and its a good move because technology by definition works by passing information around so it lends to being opposed this way everywhere.
i think Foucault is partly responsible for this with his whole panopticon nonsense.
> i'm kinda hating how privacy is becoming a boogeyman to oppose literally anything
replyIt isn't.
What rhetoric? It's not like it's made up…
reply[dead]
reply