[ehrtt]

Let me ask you this hypothetical question instead: What if we have a "brain encryption" technology that allows encrypting your brain so that brain scanners, thought detecting methods or emotion detectors cannot see through it?

Would customs be allowed to ask for the decryption key? Or should the customs just ignore whatever is encrypted inside?

[paradite]

Of course they should be allowed to do so. That would eradicate drug trafficking and cross-border terrorism.

I would say the benefit is too good, weighing against privacy.

[yholio]

Actually, it would simply make terrorists avoid official border crossings. They could, for example, pay a human trafficker $2000 to get them over the border with Mexico.

Of course, you would then request for brain scanning technology to be more widely employed and that brain scanners be installed in the subway, on buses, gas stations and any other place drug dealers and terrorists could happen to go by. I think we all know what is the end for this line of reasoning.

[paradite]

You know I used to question why on earth would Trump want to "build a wall". But I think your comment (along with the previous comments) somehow made a good justification for it.

Anyway, it is quite apparent that we have fundamentally different views on these issues, so let's agree to disagree and call it a day.

[malnourish]

Unfortunately your views are fundamentally opposed to what most people (at the very least here) would define as freedom and civil rights.

[paradite]

Judging from the negative scores, you are right.

Does that mean I am going to self-sensor my views to avoid losing karma? No. You have your rights to disagree, I have my rights to express my views.

[zo1]

>"I have my rights to express my views. "

Only if you don't mind the downvotes. For some odd reason, these 'imaginary points' end up causing me to self-censor anyways.

On further-thought, it makes me think it's just something built into us. We seek social/group approval, and it makes us regress to the mean when it comes to thought/opinion. However, I don't think it's the right way for our brains to be wired, especially with social media exposing us to the entire world.

And now with this border-search thing. If it means that the state end up having access to all your social media accounts, that now span decade+ timeframes, not even time and personal growth/regret can protect us.

[malnourish]

I don't advocate for downvoting those whom I disagree with, if it were up to me you wouldn't be downvoted.

[wool_gather]

Yeah, it would be preferable if your comments weren't voted down here because of disagreement with the view you express, as long as it's expressed clearly and constructively (which it is).

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> That would eradicate drug trafficking and cross-border terrorism.

No, it wouldn't. One key weakness of totalitarian systems (and that is what you are advocating for) is always that the massive power of the system attracts criminals and corruption into the system and has a major risk of the criminals ending up using the totalitarian power for themselves. If you think there is some sort of absolute solution to a social problem, you are ignoring that implementing the solution does itself build on society. If society isn't free of crime, your solution won't be free of crime either, and if society if free of crime, you don't need the solution. And if your solution isn't free of crime (so, you have corrupt police officers or judges or whatever), then you have thus given criminals the option to use a massively powerful weapon for themselves in some ways.

[mito88]

"the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the law."

Tacitus

[malnourish]

It wouldn't stop those things though, there will always be a weak point. What it would do is erode the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens (something that terrorists seem to want).

Furthermore, if you want to stop drug trafficking, legalize them.

[paradite]

> It wouldn't stop those things though, there will always be a weak point.

If that is your argument, then I don't think anyone can convince you.

> What it would do is erode the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens (something that terrorists seem to want).

That's not how Wikipedia (and I myself) define terrorism:

> Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim.

[malnourish]

I can be convinced when the argument is good. I don't think a nebulous, "give up your privacy for some possible safety gains" is such an argument. I equate privacy with freedom, and I don't want to give up my freedom.