>Since Zippy's point is that it *IS ONLY* about State control and their increase of mass
>surveillance with the intent to control your life, and NOT about child molesting then I'm not
>sure how you make that connection.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. You linked to that article implying that Zippy's link to The Register was "..cherry picked or tabloid-ed".
In fact that article is about the Indian Govt.'s demand for message tracing but it acknowledges that the underlying technology is, as Zippy notes with his mention of "mission creep", wide open to abuse. The author even notes in bold text and a much bigger font:
"One last note to academic authors: don’t help bad people build unrestricted surveillance systems and then punt “preventing abuse” to later papers, ok?"
He ends by saying:
"When I read a paper that builds a sophisticated surveillance system, I expect it to address those abuse problems in a meaningful way. If the paper punts the important problems to subsequent work — if what I get is a paragraph like the one at right — my thinking is that you aren’t solving the right problem. You’re just laying the engineering groundwork for a world I don’t want my kids to live in. I would politely ask you all to stop doing that.
Or are we just discussing the semantics of Zippy's post?
|
