Re:An update on AirTag and unwanted tracking
by gambiting on Friday February 11, 2022 @07:19AM
(#30300535)
>>The people getting stalked have a 100% risk. You don't care because for you it's all just statistics.
I don't know why would you say such a thing.
Let me give you another example - the chance of getting stabbed on the streets of London is probably comparably miniscule to being stalked.
And now if we extend that argument - almost 100% of people getting stabbed are men.
Does that mean that as a man I should start wearing a knife-proof vest? Is me refusing to do so "not caring" or that "it's only statistics for me"?
After all, people getting stabbed have a 100% risk of getting stabbed - that's a pointless statement if I have ever seen one.
I just don't understand the aggression of that statement - just because my gender is statistically unlikely to be stalked doesn't mean that somehow I suddenly don't care, or that women shouldn't care - just that in your daily life you should really consider how big of a risk something really is.
>>With statistical arguments, why do we spend so many resources on prevention of anything, e.g. cancer, when it only impacts a small number of people?
That isn't the argument though. We aren't arguing spending or not spending money to prevent a small number of cases(in which case I'd say absolutely this money should be spent). I replied to someone who said AirTags should be completely and entirely banned over a very small number of cases where they were used maliciously.
To use the cancer comparison - it's like someone saying that we should ban bacon worldwide because it's a known factor in certain cancers. I'd also argue against it, because the risk to any one individual from eating bacon is absolutely miniscule.
I don't know why would you say such a thing.
Let me give you another example - the chance of getting stabbed on the streets of London is probably comparably miniscule to being stalked.
And now if we extend that argument - almost 100% of people getting stabbed are men.
Does that mean that as a man I should start wearing a knife-proof vest? Is me refusing to do so "not caring" or that "it's only statistics for me"?
After all, people getting stabbed have a 100% risk of getting stabbed - that's a pointless statement if I have ever seen one.
I just don't understand the aggression of that statement - just because my gender is statistically unlikely to be stalked doesn't mean that somehow I suddenly don't care, or that women shouldn't care - just that in your daily life you should really consider how big of a risk something really is.
>>With statistical arguments, why do we spend so many resources on prevention of anything, e.g. cancer, when it only impacts a small number of people?
That isn't the argument though. We aren't arguing spending or not spending money to prevent a small number of cases(in which case I'd say absolutely this money should be spent). I replied to someone who said AirTags should be completely and entirely banned over a very small number of cases where they were used maliciously.
To use the cancer comparison - it's like someone saying that we should ban bacon worldwide because it's a known factor in certain cancers. I'd also argue against it, because the risk to any one individual from eating bacon is absolutely miniscule.