441–450 of 570 posts
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
It's my right to hide whatever I want, regardless of whether somebody else considers it "something to hide" or not; just as it's your right to buy a 3m tall chocolate statue of yourself, regardless of whether I think it's something you need.
The question is not "is it really necessary?" but "who the #£$! gave you the right to decide whether I consider it to be necessary for myself?"
Then again, here in (east) Germany, somebody argues "I have nothnig to hide", you just tell them "Neither did people 40 years ago" and the conversation is pretty much over.
I mean people should have a right to know who has had access to this information and why, right? Surely the constitution says something about illegal searches?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also worth noting that 'speeding' has only a very rough correlation with risky driving behavior. A road that meets MUTCD standards is usually guaranteed to have at least 15% of drivers speeding on it by design.
You got me interested in the subject so I did some searching. This document, while doesn't address speed as a factor of accidents directly, does seems to show that speed cameras do push down Australia's fatality rate on the roads. (I'm Australian) https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2010/is_039
For most accidents there is more than one factor that contributed to the accident. While speed is a measurable and oft-cited factor in a crash, it is not necessarily the reason that the crash occurred. Example: Someone drives 75 in a 70 zone, stops paying attention, and drives off the road into a wall. Speed and inattention could likely both be cited by forensic examiners as a factor, but the crash may have had the same outcome regardless of the speeding and entirely determined by the inattention.
And to the other opposite, there are plenty of scenarios where someone could follow the legal speed limit of a road while operating their car at an unsafe speed. Someone could drive 65 in a 70 zone on an icy road, or past stopped traffic, etc. While they are following the legal speed limit, they are operating at a speed that puts others at risk.
Basically, speed limits are an easy to understand approximation of what is usually a good idea for most drivers in most cars under reasonable conditions. Given that, sometimes they are too high and sometimes they are too low.
You might find this page interesting:
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/speed-managem...
I cannot believe that the one thing we have bipartisan consensus on is destroying strong encryption. I guess I’m biased since this is essentially my whole livelihood, but this is crazy, right?
Most differences between republicans and democrats are superficial. Republicans don't really believe in small government no more than Democrats really believe in social justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same kind of self destructing thinking that has the US on the ropes right now. So much of our society has rules and penalties because people are not very good at "exercising prudence". Instead we ask experts to think carefully about problems and set limits around what we should do so that we can all get along in a safe and peaceful society. We don't allow doctors to practice surgery without a license and…
> So much of our society has rules and penalties because people are not very good at "exercising prudence". Speak for yourself. > Instead we ask experts to think carefully about problems and set limits around what we should do so that we can all get along in a safe and peaceful society. That's a nice myth, but it's not the reality. The reality is that governments use this power for purposes that have nothing to do wi…
Agreed 100%. Experts should make decisions based on open data that anybody can review. Also there are a lot of grey areas, so often we look for "scientific consensus" where a community of experts can debate issues and attempt to decide whats best.
The rest of your comment is basically that government does a bad job at a lot of things, but my view is we should fix government rather than reject it.
I live in a much smaller country, and here, I feel a small group of individuals _can_ make enough noise to shape policy. Sort of. At least they have a say. A good corruption watchdog would help - we don't have it yet, but at least there is talk of one. No climate policy. The whole witness K thing. Massive expansion of Defense this week. Cuts to the ABC. Err, dark times for Australian politics, but it _could_ be all rolled back at the next election. It will be a close race. I'm rambling now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then just change the question to "Cool, can I take a look at your bank account details?"
Which doesn't work either: "Well the government already knows my bank details"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's complete BS. Speeds have not been updated to match the technical characteristics of modern cars. There's a reason why Germany doesn't even have a speed limit - the limit itself is pointless. They only fine you for dangerous driving.
From Wikipedia. " In 2018, the autobahn rate of 1.7 fatality per billion traveled kilometer is less secure than both the French one at 1.4 per billion traveled kilometers, and the British one at 1.4 fatalities per vehicle-miles traveled[27]. This means the risk of fatalities per traveled vehicle kilometer is 20% higher in Germany than in France, and near 92% higher than in the UK. "
[1] https://de.statista.com/infografik/16765/todesfaelle-auf-aut...
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
There's other ways. Ask them for their passwords, ask them to hand their phone and riffle through their conversations and photos. If I know they won't be offended them I'll ask them to send me nudes or if they would let me put a camera in their shower. After all, if you're have nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, so why should you close your shower curtain?
Because otherwise you get water all over your bathroom floor?