Isn't an atomic bomb just a scaled up version of a firecracker?
Nobody denies that collection of datasets can have upsides. But the downsides are often not seen/evaluated accurately. And negative effects don't necessarily scale with the same power as positive effects.
>Isn't an atomic bomb just a scaled up version of a firecracker?
Yes and no. I think radiation is a big differentiator, but absent that, I don't think it is better morally or ethically to level a city with conventual bombs than it would be to do it with a nuclear bomb.
>Nobody denies that collection of datasets can have upsides. But the downsides are often not seen/evaluated accurately. And negative effects don't necessarily scale with the same power as positive effects.
I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm asking why this same logic is not applied elsewhere.
The point with the firecracker/bomb is this: Not just because it's the same type of tool means that it has the same cost/benefit analysis. The dangers of, say, firecrackers in the had of the general public, scale dramatically faster than the benefit, going from kid-safe firework to bunker busters. The same goes for "a cop with a camera" to "tag readers at every corner".
I think with encryption, the underestimate is on the other side. Everyone understand that bad guys using encryption is bad. But people do not see the upsides of encryption for the good guys, pretty much for the same reason as they do not see the downsides of data collection: I have nothing to hide. [or the common related variant: Advertisement doesn't affect me]
> I think with encryption, the underestimate is on the other side. Everyone understand that bad guys using encryption is bad. But people do not see the upsides of encryption for the good guys
And why are you confident that this doesn’t exist for the license plate dataset? You’re confidentially making two opposing arguments with no justification beyond it getting you to your desired conclusion on that specific issue.
That what doesn't exist for the license plate dataset? I am sure there are good reasons for having that dataset. For most data collection, there are good reasons.
My argument is that just because we decided that "police with camera" is a worthy trade-off, you cannot use this as an argument for "license plate scanning is a worthy trade-off". It could be that it is, but it doesn't follow from "it's a scaled up version of police with camera".
I think you are going too deep down individual tangents here. My “cop with a camera” comment was challenging the idea that datasets aren’t tools.
If the issue is purely about amplifying the danger of bad actors and therefore forcing us to reevaluate the tradeoffs, encryption and AI do that too.