pintxo

Guess both are excused for not having up to the par approaches available.

One further argument to replaster it ;-)

I'd have put the effort into replacing the "Raufaser" tapestry with a plastered wall, but that's personal preferences. ;-)

The history of human civilization is quite telling, no?

Why create an instrument that has a limited upside, but a downside that can lead into totalitarianism, in the first place? If it does not exist, I don't need to trust anyone, hence there won't be a problem.

Institutions can go evil, as seen in any friendly dictatorship all over the world in the last 100+ year.

Keeping the police on the legal side of things seems to be challenging (ICE killings? Asset forfeiture? Police brutality?), better to make it harder for them to do something illegal in the first place.

I am still waiting on a working answer to the question of "who watches the watchmen", so far, this has never really worked (NSA/Snowden?). What has worked quite well was limiting the institutions up-front.

A reasonable regulation, focusing on personal freedom, would just forbid building such a network in the first place.

1. There is a huge difference between my neighbors accidentally seeing me leaving my place, vs an anonymous person 7 months later, being able to statistically analyze when I leave my place in the morning, and when I return in the evening, even getting a list of the places I stayed over night on the days where I did not return in the evening.

2. see above

3. The downsides are enormous as well - Want to know who went to that protest last night? Query your local palantir console. Who met with your former wive within the last 2 weeks? Flock will give you answers.

4. The problem is scale (in the number of people who can observe me, the time frame I can be observed over and the length of time over which that information is available)

It exists, it is called "UG", minimum capital 1€. You have to increase capital up to at least 25k though, out of your annual profits.

AFAIK Germany got the majority of the fissile fuel from Russia..

What would a crowds more sophisticated, intellectual, form of answer be?

You missed the "mainstream" qualifier from the parent. I am afraid nothing you described here could be considered mainstream, although I'd like to see these things becoming mainstream.

Also for business customers? I would expect such regulations to only apply to b2c contexts.

By not using special chars in the first place, you can be sure you will not be able to run into any (unintentional) bugs later.

And not using special chars is cheap, as by requiring a min-length of 13 instead of 12, you can get an even greater level of security.

Not everyone on here is necessarily from SV?

> But at the same time, the budget for justice system needs to increase. It should be most probably the strongest branch of the government. Delayed justice is one of the most common ways of injustice.

The judical branch should very much NOT be a part of the government itself, but a fully separate branch.

> Corruption within private companies is irrelevant, as the main ones to suffer from it are usually shareholders.

As we have seen in the past, we have the same, if not worse, power imbalances in private companies as in the public sector. I would therefore not call it irrelevant, but agree that the Justice system can help here if appropriatly staffed.

> Monopolies are not always a negative outcome on a free market if the company in Monopoly situation reaches that position by offering better products within the law. However they can be specially dangerous when they're artificially created by the Government (e.g. allocation of a common resource to a specific company --> corruption almost always follows).

Do you have a single example for a company who did not over time monetized its monopoly power to the detriment of the customer?