[nmeagent]

Consider a world where a sizeable fraction of the population has and uses such a device, such that its presence is assumed and ultimately mandated by authoritarian law enforcement entities, surveillance capitalist firms, and so on. Can you imagine the inescapable nightmare this would become even with the norms of today? Do you really want to offer fuzzy recall of two of five senses to "legitimate legal process", rapacious marketers, or anyone else who somehow gains access to these data?

Personally I would consider it a moral imperative to refuse to use such a device and to avoid anyone who does otherwise.

So no, please don't create such a thing. Stop now.

[aurintex]

I completely understand your concern, and I agree, the kind of scenario you describe would be morally unacceptable. I wouldn’t want to build or be responsible for anything that could enable it.

That said, I often think about how this tension applies to nearly every new technology. Most tools can be used for good or bad, and history shows that progress tends to happen either way. If we had refused to develop technologies simply because they could be misused, we might not have any at all.

I do believe it’s possible to build responsibly through transparency, local-first design, and strong legal safeguards. The EU’s data protection laws, for example, give me some hope that we’re not entirely defenseless.

Do you see this kind of outcome as something we’re tangibly heading toward, or more as a warning of what could happen if we’re not careful?