Is it the same people arguing in both directions, or signs that different groups have different interests and are attracted to/comment on different stories?
In the former, a small closed source centralized authority has all the information and power.
In the latter, everyone has the information, so the balance of power is evened.
I agree. It might be impossible to effectively govern ourselves when adhering to strict idealogical principles.
In other words, individual right to privacy may be generally a good principle that we may agree to, but society is too complicated to not resort to pragmatism and there will always be exceptions. Is it not the same with every other idealogical principle by which we govern ourselves?
Re:The Bank Robber
by wrecktangle on Thursday May 26, 2016 @01:48AM
(#11775822)
The 2015 UBS Future of Finance Challenge, so to speak, leaves you with the convenient impression that the investment bank is fighting becoming obsolete due to technological innovation; until it becomes this accessibly clear that the grand objective is understanding how the Bitcoin machinery works for example to improve the techniques of banking secrecy.
So, usually, it goes like this: privacy is good, government has no business snooping around, and Bitcoin-like solutions for financial privacy are the future of resisting "the system". But in this case, consensus is different: privacy is bad, governments of the world need to know financial information of individuals, and whoever tries to protect this information is evil.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?