I have never heard anyone blame automative manufactures for the use of getaway cars, nor have I ever heard anyone in that industry vocally minimizing the problem of vehicular crime to avoid some commercial inconvenience. The nearest thing I can think of is manufacturers ignoring the legal requirement for front license plates in their designs.
I have never heard anyone blame automative manufactures for the use of getaway cars
This is exactly my point. Yet we have people trying to get tech corporations to act in the role of law enforcement, which they ought not to be doing and certainly ought not be to required to by law.
nor have I ever heard anyone in that industry vocally minimizing the problem of vehicular crime to avoid some commercial inconvenience.
If you have people demanding that all cars come with government tracking devices under the pretext they could be used in bank robberies and someone in the auto industry notices that bank robberies aren't actually all that common, what should they do? Pretend it to be otherwise?
This is not a matter of commercial inconvenience. The economic cost of writing or installing the code is not the issue. The issue is that this is totalitarianism which once installed would not be limited to enforcing laws against child abuse. One of the reasons privacy is a human right is to protect the public against abuses of the state. It doesn't cease to be a right because the state finds it inconvenient -- the state is meant to find it inconvenient.
Comments
I have never heard anyone blame automative manufactures for the use of getaway cars, nor have I ever heard anyone in that industry vocally minimizing the problem of vehicular crime to avoid some commercial inconvenience. The nearest thing I can think of is manufacturers ignoring the legal requirement for front license plates in their designs.
https://www.sfgate.com/cars/article/Front-license-plate-cars...
This is exactly my point. Yet we have people trying to get tech corporations to act in the role of law enforcement, which they ought not to be doing and certainly ought not be to required to by law.
If you have people demanding that all cars come with government tracking devices under the pretext they could be used in bank robberies and someone in the auto industry notices that bank robberies aren't actually all that common, what should they do? Pretend it to be otherwise?
This is not a matter of commercial inconvenience. The economic cost of writing or installing the code is not the issue. The issue is that this is totalitarianism which once installed would not be limited to enforcing laws against child abuse. One of the reasons privacy is a human right is to protect the public against abuses of the state. It doesn't cease to be a right because the state finds it inconvenient -- the state is meant to find it inconvenient.