• nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    This makes sense on the face of it, but trust is fleeting. Let’s say we do establish trust in a democratically elected government and allow them to ‘violate’ our privacy for the common good. Who’s to say the next elected representatives are just as trustworthy? If the laws and systems we create allow for violation of privacy in the long term they will be abused at some point.

    • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, I think there’s much more to making a government subordinate to its people than just electing representatives, especially if our options for representation are limited. I’m talking about a more radical departure from the status quo, about making the people the ultimate authority.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not sure how that works exactly but I’ll still want my privacy from “the people.” if there is the potential for abuse there will be abuse, I’d rather limit the data leak right at the source.

        • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m not necessarily opposed to privacy rights, but it would ultimately be the government that would have to enforce those rights, so how do you ensure that the government adequately enforces your privacy rights and that there isn’t any possibility for abuse?

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It will always be a battle. Any form of government will always want access to your data. The biggest danger is complacency. If it gets to the point where the majority don’t even care about privacy all is lost.