[tashoecraft]

The problem with older cars, is that safety standards have improved dramatically in that time. So while you might have a "dumb" car that isn't spying on you, in the event of an crash, you are going to be much more likely to be injured. If I had to weigh being spied on with being injured, I'd guess the odds of being injured actually impacting my life negatively as greatly higher.

I do miss my old Saab though...

[userbinator]

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither," as the saying goes, and these recent years that saying has gotten quite a bit more meaningful, I think.

[InitialLastName]

From now on, you only get to pull that quote out if you make literally no compromises to your freedom for the sake of security. Lock your car doors, thus making yourself less free to open them in favor of a bit of security? Run a firewall on your server, reducing your freedom to connect frictionlessly however you like in favor of that also being true of others?

[flukus]

That phrase originally had the opposite meaning: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

> It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security.

[thatcat]

Car wrecks are a safety concern not security.

[kwk1]

That's not the correct quote, you're missing two key modifiers. It's "essential liberty" for "temporary security"... which is not the case here.

[thatcat]

What about when the data is collected from all the spying and used to deny your claim?