Comment by ssklash
4 years ago
I don't understand this argument at all. Look at the Clipper Chip debacle in the 90s. It was technically feasible and the government very much wanted to do it. And the reason they didn't is push back from the public, saying this is a bad idea that can easily be misused, even if it does make some law enforcement things easier. I don't see how this is any different.
Sacrificing the privacy of the many to help catch a relatively small amount of (admittedly some of the worst possible) criminals, while simultaneously enabling yet more effective surveillance and oppression by those inclined governments (of which there are plenty) is a pretty terrible idea.
Eliminating the 4th amendment or mandating clear walls sure would make the cops' job easier. But no one thinks that's even a remotely good idea.
> Eliminating the 4th amendment or mandating clear walls sure would make the cops' job easier. But no one thinks that's even a remotely good idea.
Yet.
Frighteningly, there really are people who think that's a good idea. The "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" crowd. And the cops.
This argument falls on it's head when confronted by reality. Either you have a trustworthy government already that will respect your rights in a slow-rolling fashion that shifts as the dialogue within the courts evolves or you already have a government that doesn't care about you and your laws/desires at all and which will do what it wants anyway. Unless you're in the ladder there's no reason to be so hostile to empowering technologies, especially when they're being used to fight some of the most heinous types of crime.
Power corrupts.
The government in your country most likely could already oppress you if it wanted to.
1 reply →