What are people's talking points against these views?
"Would you mind if all your online activity and chat histories were sent to ChatGPT live, with it deciding if you're a suspect or a criminal? If not, why are you okay with a vague system designed by politicians?"
"If you or your partner is short and look young relative to the average Caucasian, for example due to being from certain Asian countries with low average height, would you trust that ChatGPT wouldn't erroneously classify pictures as being of a minor and mark you a criminal?"
People tend to get sensitive when you expand the idea a bit and give them an example of the technical part that they can relate to.
I know a lot of people who would just go “yes?”. The same people would freak out if there was a camera in their Airbnb. Or if they thought two steps ahead and realized their sexy photos or pictures of their kids would be viewed by some 20 year old moderator-reviewer type. Or would want to make revenge porn criminal, or even deepfake porn. Let alone any type of concern for journalists and their sources.
People for some reason don’t think these laws apply to them, that they would just be ignored by any snooping eyes because of course they look only for real criminals like terrorists and pedos. These proposals should ideally cause the same type of worry as being stopped by a cop even if you didn’t do anything wrong.
There will always be people you cannot convince however, either because they have different ideologies or being in a place in life where all arguments wear off and they have no reason to spare it another thought.
We only need a majority in the voting group, not everyone.
Hence why people hate speed cameras "they just trying to make money" Well don't speed then, and you won't have to give em money!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37114262
Today I'd add to the list the discussion on Israel using AI to decide who to bomb. AI isn't smart enough to understand that people who just bought a washing machine shouldn't be shown ads for washing machines, but apparently it's good enough for deciding who's a terrorist.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245
Having said that, I personally know someone who was arrested and mistreated by police forces for being related to a criminal, and yet I've never managed to convince them that maybe the police shouldn't have that kind of power. In those cases I typically consider that the person discussing probably won't change their view, but maybe I can still reach those listening to the conversation.
However, I am not sure if using examples of something currently considered crime will work well, especially as people will actively deny anything other than petty violations like speeding. It is valid of course, in particular when combined with inhumane regimes and authorities, or even regular ones that do not see lightly on people airing their dirty laundry, but convincing others takes more than just having a correct argument...
- Think of the most embarrassing thing you've done, and now tell me about it
- Unlock and show me your phone so I can view all your messages, photos and apps
Now that we've established that you have something to hide, we can talk about where the line is.
This sounds like a very hands on counter argument. I'm gonna use that the next time this comes up in conversation.
Everyone knows what you're doing in the toilet, yet we do not use glass walls for toilet stall doors.
Some people abuse this and do drugs or hide in toilets, but does that genuinely mean we should have glass doors for all our toilets in society?
What about toilets at home?
Usually they start to see the problem.
For many europeans, US-style toilet cubicles (with large space between floor and wall) feels pretty much like glass doors. I wonder why people tolerate that.
If you have nothing to hide then unlock your phone and let me dig in. And give me all your passwords, you have nothing to hide, right?
0% of them will comply.
Or you can cite the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
On a more abstract level: in a democracy you need to consider the abuse potential of a law, and you need to leave open ways for peaceful reform if our institutions fail. That's why confidential communication channels between citizens are important, and intercepting private communication has to always come with strong checks and balances
"Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
Jewish Dutch people willingly filled in their religion during a census in the 1930’s. A decade later 95% of them were exterminated. The nazis appreciated the organized nature of the Dutch.
"Can I see your chat history?"
- It is not about you but fundamental rights in our society that are important. Argueing like "I don't have any of that sort of stuff" is like saying "I'm not gay, so what do I care about gay rights" (replace with any disadvantaged group and don't blame me for bad example please).
- Things can quickly change, even when done with nothing bad in mind. You find countless misuses with collected data, prime example is again the Nazis that rolled into Dutch (or Belgium?) and abused the recorded religions. However, today in almost any democracy imagination has not to be taken too far that another worse power comes to real power. Just look at threats Trump, or mostly right wing parties in Europe already made.