Spark of Stupid : An apology and a correction
After publishing yesterday's Op-Ed Civil Liberties debate : A practical solution? where I shared an idea regarding an opt-in to consenting to less privacy in return for a more efficient way to track and monitor our movement to combat the infection of Coronavirus.
Agnes Venema, a good friend of mine, who happens to be a PhD in intelligence and national security, not to mention her Human Rights Law knowledge and experience, was quick to point out that that there were many trade-offs to such proposal, and many missing components particularly regarding the potential to exploit such information for commercial benefit and abuse of authoritative positions.
I was quick to defend my idea as I do in most cases. Agnes, I am sorry. That public exchange got out of hand. As you well pointed out, things like the sunset clause were not even discussed, and quite frankly, I didn't even think about that.
The opinions of Perception versus Substance are meant to spark debate, and maybe some controversial positions in order to spark debates. That is not meant to insult, degrade, or judge anyone.
While Agnes and I have made our peace, I still thought it would be correct to post this, and we have a follow-up since I clearly need to learn more about the subject.
So, for today, we will call that "Practical Solution" a conversation-starter?