• falseWhite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    I don’t really see it as a surveillance over-reach.

    Just because you don’t see it happening now, it doesn’t mean it could not be used against people to persecute them, especially in fascist countries, where this would be a perfect tool for tracking people and mass surveillance.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is a slippery slope logical fallacy.

      Thing could be used with nefarious intent therefore thing should not exist.

      I’ll admit I’m not really across the technical implementation details. The equivalent apps here in Australia don’t have the capability to track or surveil you.

      There’s different variants but the ones here basically just show a photo of your ID with an animated background and generate a time based token that can be scanned and verified.

      • falseWhite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        How will I benefit from having a digital ID? I won’t.

        So why give away my privacy and gain nothing?

        Sounds unnecessary and therefore stupid.

        The equivalent apps here in Australia don’t have the capability to track or surveil you.

        And then you say:

        …generate a time based token that can be scanned and verified.

        There’s your tracking, you’ve just been scanned and both your location and timestamp have now been recorded by the scanning app, and all the other data associated with whatever you were doing, like buying alcohol or entering a nightclub.

      • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t think this qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy. The outcomes they describe have backing in the form of places like China and the claims aren’t extremely divergent from what can be expected of corps and govs.

        The way you are applying it would mean precluding all outlooks with any negative future to them. It’s not wrong to foresee a bad outcome. What would be a slippery slope is if there were no reasonable examples of abuse of this kind of tech or examples of approaching the explained outcome. Alternatively if they took it to an extreme that wasn’t realistic in amy scenario like determining how many kids you were allowed to have who you could date/marry and all determined by a corp or gov.