I try to avoid resorting to ad hominem, but maybe it's just you? In general, no marketing would dial back the economy drastically, which I think is a good idea. Depends on your goals of course.
I took it to mean my take an implied lack of agency when evaluating advertisements in one's life and if one should act on it.
My take would be that one does indeed lack the agency to be able to evaluate ads that way. The environment itself makes it impossible. SNR is way too low to find valid signals to evaluate. The number being purely honest and informative with zero spin must be close to zero.
'You think people are inherently stupid and end up buying things they will regret.'
No. _history has unequivocally proven_ that people are inherently stupid and end up buying things they will regret. Or at least they should, if they were aware of the full extent of damage typical products cause.
Its about the numbers. Sure sometimes they are stupid and make stupid decisions but the extent matters. Take your own example - if I ~reach~ read your purchase history can I characterise you as inherently stupid?
Not exactly, he just chooses not to participate, which is fine. Many - me included - still think freedom of speech is important, so these systems need to be built, and hopefully, they will. We can also choose to participate.
When they have a court warrant, it's not arbitrary. I think some rights were given to the people to combat government tyranny (right to bear arms for example), but combating government tyranny is just not feasible anymore, due to a set of factors, like our inability to organize behind a common cause. Anyway, the choice here is reserving our ability to overthrow an unjust system, or giving the government the rights to catch those who might want to unjustly overthrow it.
The court warrant sounds like it's a good idea, and don't most other things work that way too? Actually End-to-end encryption isn't that different.
It so happens that there's no point in taking out a warrant against the man-in-the-middle, because he has no access to begin with.
You'll have to get a warrant against one of the ends.
What these proposals would end up doing is to force people to weaken protocols and start spying as a man-in-the-middle, just so that they can be targeted by a warrant.
This is just a little bit silly, I feel; and doesn't really help anyone. I don't think that authorities realize that that is what they're asking for. Usually when it gets explained to them, sooner or later they relent. And then a few years later someone replaces them, and it happens all over again.
I don't see any proposal to "weaken protocols." Why would the government try to mandate the use of provably unsound end-to-end encryption, weakening security for everyone, when it could just order Apple and Google to spy on the user's end, which they control?
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Possessing cryptography does not imply the boogeyman will, as a consequence, gain the ability to overthrow the system. On the other hand, there's very concrete evidence governments are the boogeymen.
It is might makes right essentially - if treason doth prospor none dare call it treason. If there is absolutely no hope of any effort to revert it succeeding it is just.
The Holocaust indirectly lead to (a the abolishment of centuries old anti-semitic laws (from Magna Carta) (b the establishment of the state of Israel. I'm not implying 'they won', but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century.
N'ah, there's plenty I don't know. I'm just using my free speech to make my preferences known regarding this service I use and support via my attention.
