[furi]

...And direct opposition to those hundreds of millions of other users. Trying to fit this to a victims vs. offenders model is a deliberate attempt to turn those hundreds of millions of other users into uninvolved bystanders. They have been pushed out by the lack of space in the model for them and their right to not have their door kicked down based on the results of an algorithm and database they can't audit, which are susceptible to targeted adversarial attacks and authoritarian interference respectively.

[ChrisKnott]

It's in "direct" opposition to them in the same way drink driving laws are in "direct" opposition to people who have no intention of driving drunk.

It's a restriction on their liberty and privacy that they willingly support because of the overall positive effects.

Anyway I'll duck out of this now the driveby downvotes annoy me.

[furi]

If drunk driving laws were enforced by mandating a breathalyzer in every car and nobody really knew how the breathalyzer worked and also it maybe doubled as an instrument for the government to catch you doing fifteen other things then I might consider that a fair comparison.

But yes, there's a lot of drive-by engagement in this thread, thank you for at least engaging with it directly.

[somebodythere]

Funny enough, the recent infrastructure bill in the US includes provisions for all new cars to be fitted with breathalyzer-like devices.