zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. Keverw+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-05-31 22:55:43
Wow really? Sounds like something that could be abused... But I know I seen some posts before talking about someone wanted to have a way to disable phones during concerts due to copyright concerns... But seems like with some things it starts out with one goal and then keeps getting expanded and expanded a little bit at a time.
replies(2): >>chance+T5 >>salawa+Ij
2. chance+T5[view] [source] 2020-05-31 23:37:52
>>Keverw+(OP)
Do you think the police would just like, abuse their power? Surely not.
3. salawa+Ij[view] [source] 2020-06-01 02:09:18
>>Keverw+(OP)
This is the number one reason I can come off as inflexible in terms of sanctioning remote control or backdooring of user device features, or the implementation of anti-features.

Once you accept something controversial can be done be highly in situation X, the fact you allow it in situation X eventually gets used as a point that it should be allowed in situation Y, where Y was the controversial thing in the first place.

replies(1): >>h3cate+qO
◧◩
4. h3cate+qO[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 09:51:32
>>salawa+Ij
100%. Everybody should be treated equally.
[go to top]