145
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
145 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
82184 readers
395 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The implied corrolary here is that a dishonest person doesn't have this right? How is one determined to be dishonest?
It's more of an emotional antipode of how tracking everyone is justified - "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" and all such.
Whether, say, a convicted rapist (I suppose that's dishonest enough) should be tracked or not is a question in the system of values my previous comment represents.
First, whether them being a confirmed (by a proven deed) threat justifies tracking them, second, whether tracking them violates rights of those around them - their coworkers, their family members, their friends, and so on, third, whether it's possible to make tools for tracking them without introducing a technical possibility of tracking random people.
Second and third are not the same, second is about how tracking technically only them exposes those on their social graph, third is about initially illegal, but technically possible use, that would eventually become legal, because of slippery slopes.