The German pirate party opposed that program because it’s about centralized storage of personal data and all centralized storage of personal data is supposed to be fought. I also think that the label “mind-killed” is fitting at that point.
Alternatively they understood that “no centralized storage of personal data” is a much better Schelling point than “no centralized storage of personal data except in a few obviously harmless cases”. Or that allowing it in a harmless case can lead to a slippery slope. Beware of assuming that anything you don’t understand is mindkill.
Or that allowing it in a harmless case can lead to a slippery slope. Beware of assuming that anything you don’t understand is mindkill.
I do understand the relevant political field.
There are people in the privacy movement who prefer that the police in Berlin routinely breaks the law to locate people who confess to attempting suicide via the telephone over the police having the legal authority to locate those people.
At the same time the pirate party did very little to protest centralized storage of medical information because that wasn’t a topic on the agenda of the mainstream media.
Or that allowing it in a harmless case can lead to a slippery slope.
They don’t have the power whether or not to allow it or to enforce a Schelling point. As a strategic choice it’s very bad to not have the debate about privacy in a way where you argue based on rational arguments why certain state actions aren’t worth it. Without engaging in rational discourse but instead fighting for a Schelling point that way outside of what you can push through, you don’t effect political choices.
The German pirate party effectively did get nothing done on a political level in the face of the Snowden leaks right in front of a general German election because they didn’t fight for specific political goals to move public policy in the right direction. That’s very sad.
They also damaged themselves through infighting to the point of not entering the German federal parliament.
Things would have played out differently with competent people at the head of the pirate party. In that case we would have at least some decent pro-privacy laws passed and we would have a pirate party in the German federal parliament.
Alternatively they understood that “no centralized storage of personal data” is a much better Schelling point than “no centralized storage of personal data except in a few obviously harmless cases”. Or that allowing it in a harmless case can lead to a slippery slope. Beware of assuming that anything you don’t understand is mindkill.
I do understand the relevant political field.
There are people in the privacy movement who prefer that the police in Berlin routinely breaks the law to locate people who confess to attempting suicide via the telephone over the police having the legal authority to locate those people.
At the same time the pirate party did very little to protest centralized storage of medical information because that wasn’t a topic on the agenda of the mainstream media.
They don’t have the power whether or not to allow it or to enforce a Schelling point. As a strategic choice it’s very bad to not have the debate about privacy in a way where you argue based on rational arguments why certain state actions aren’t worth it. Without engaging in rational discourse but instead fighting for a Schelling point that way outside of what you can push through, you don’t effect political choices.
The German pirate party effectively did get nothing done on a political level in the face of the Snowden leaks right in front of a general German election because they didn’t fight for specific political goals to move public policy in the right direction. That’s very sad.
They also damaged themselves through infighting to the point of not entering the German federal parliament.
Things would have played out differently with competent people at the head of the pirate party. In that case we would have at least some decent pro-privacy laws passed and we would have a pirate party in the German federal parliament.