Not if it was given away for free and the user was entitled to have it. But if by 'free software' you mean (although I do not think that you do in this instance) a copy of Nero CD burner which someone has cracked and is distributing then the MS proposal might cause problems. If MS manage to obtain political and legal approval for the kind of software being described (which I believe is spyware in all but name) then they will be able to look at the contents of the hard drive, not only for information to assist with 'directed advertising', but for any other material. I can imagine that the RIAA/MAFIAA in the US would love to be able to collect such information particularly if there is the method for collecting it is entirely legal. I am of the opinion that no-one should have access to the data on my hard drive other than those that I choose to give it to. The software could also be open to attack by crackers who would have a field day with passwords, bank details, personal information etc. Of course, the way that MS describe it makes it sound almost acceptable but it is the thin end of the wedge.
And I would argue that Word is the most famous, and most used, of the Office Suite. So yes, they did write quality software. Visual Studio was another good IDE that I believe they wrote from scratch. Now I am not a supporter of Microsoft, I use Linux extensively, but burying one's head in the sand and denying things which are clear for all to see does not sound like a sensible way to win an argument. They have bought lots of good software and resold it - its called business, by the way, and many other companies have done the same - but they have produced several OS that have sold in unbelievable quantities worldwide. We may not like them but millions of others find they work adequately for their own purposes. Of course, I can laugh at W95, W98 etc but the linux offerings at that time were nothing like the polished distros that we can find today.
I am against what this article seems to be proposing is Microsoft's next step and I do not think that everyone will fall for it. But some will. The future OS will do what they want with no intelligence required on their part. They will not care if it is looking at the contents of their hard drive and, unless they are involved in using copyright material without paying for it, then they will probably notice nothing that will affect how they use their computer. Its a shame, but I think MS will get away with this sufficiently for the sales of software and the income from the big businesses that they are cooperating with to balance their books.
I accept the point that you are making, but have you any examples where the company has made 'mistakes' i.e. where it cannot be 'trusted'? If the end result is that they are making no more mistakes now than they ever did (and that such mistakes are rectified when identified) then there might be a good case for their change to the billing format if they are saving you, the customer, money. But I suspect that you are right, because people do not see their bill they no longer know what mistakes are being made.
I was refuting his claim that the only way Google can get your personal information is if you give it to them.
Which is wrong. What he said is that anyone can give it to them, not just "you". There is a difference between the two statements but I get the feeling that you are both on the same side and arguing over semantics
Have you written to your MP and/or MEP regarding this situation? I have - and I received a favourable reply. Furthermore, on both the previous attempt and the current attempt to introduce software patents failed because my MEP stood/stands against it. That's democracy. I also accept that some in Europe can be very undemocratic and try to misuse procedures to achieve what they cannot achieve through the correct channels. Let them know that YOU don't like this being done in YOUR name and ask you MP/MEP to take a stand against such practices. However, if you don't speak out you cannot complain that nobody listens to you.
We both agree with the principle of non-dependence on proprietary systems, which is precisely why there will be an investigation into the BBC concentrating on Windows systems and ignoring those who use something else. However, I can understand why the BBC needs to have some system of controlling who can view their output even if I disagree with the method they have chosen. But I haven't got a better technical solution to their problem. If you have then you are in a perfect position to make a whole load of money from your idea if you can get it used. But essentially, you have to make sure that licence holders can get it for free because they have already paid for it (which will, of course, not be in your favour) or that non-licence holders can subscribe to it for an additional fee (because they have not already paid for it nor do they have some inherent right to receive it).
You need a licence to watch TV, drive a car, own a firearm, operate an amateur radio station etc. That is a statement of fact. If you don't agree with it you can lobby your MP to get the law overturned. It is entirely unconnected to the payment to the BBC for services that only they provide under the Charter, to and for the Government and population of the UK. Other BBC functions are funded separately, for example, by the MOD, FCO or by private business initiatives. You might consider your non-compliance with the law regarding TV licences a gesture of defiance. I believe that I should obey the law but attempt through the accepted democratic processes to have unfair or unjust laws changed or repealed. This is not a criticism of your actions; it is not my place to judge you or anyone else. I will live my life according the rules of right or wrong that I believe in.
The BBC are funded by the Government (which happens to use the money raised by the licence but try to disconnect the two things. This is simply a matter of convenience and was quite clearly separate a decade ago. Money saving measures have, as I said, muddied the issue somewhat). They are paying the BBC to provide certain services, which the BBC does. Why do you object to the Government having to pay for services that someone provides to it?
OK but that is a battle that will be fought when it occurs. At the moment common sense has prevailed. It might also do so in the future but, like you, I am not optimistic.
No, I'm not quite sure that I follow your argument. The licence is for the purpose of receiving ANY TV broadcast. Therefore, if you watch Sky or ITV you need a licence; you are not paying the BBC in order to watch channels unregulated by them. The requirement for a licence is not linked directly to a specific channel so why do you object to "paying a licence fee to watch channels other than the BBC"? In the same way, a driving licence allows you to drive any car and not just a specific car (within a specific class of vehicle but lets not over-complicate things). The BBC receives government funding because it has obligations to both the state and each licence holder which do not apply to any other UK broadcasting company. Such obligations cost the BBC a lot of money (e.g. maintaining a sustainable broadcast capability for use by the state during times of national emergency or disaster, producing educational programs would wouldn't be cost effective in a purely commercial market (OU etc), no advertising). The other TV channels do not want, nor do they have, similar obligations but they WOULD love to receive additional funding. The Government , rightly in my view, declines to provide it to them. What muddies the situation is that the licence fee is collected by the BBC on behalf of the Government (a cost saving measure that was introduced some time back, it used to be the Government's responsibility) and they are the beneficiaries of the licence fee for the reasons that I explained above. It looks like it is all the same action but, in fact, it is two separate tasks on of which the Treasury has decided to delegate to the BBC in order to save taxpayers' money.
Except you are wrong. The licence permits you to receive ANY TV broadcast, from ANY source, in ANY format. That is what the law says you need the licence for and if you read the licence it is clearly explained. Its just that it all get paid to the BBC whether you want to watch Sky, ITV or something from overseas if you live near the coast.
Stream to UK licence holding citizens. In which case the service is free (i.e. already paid for). So they have to be able to limit this stream to valid licence holders, hence DRM.
Stream to non-UK licence holding citizens. In which case they can charge for the service but they have to be able to ensure that it is only going to those who have paid, hence DRM.
The problem, as someone has already pointed out, is not with DRM which is the solution to their problem (whether we like it or not!) but the fact that they are only accepting those who use Windows. The BBC licence does not permit this. You are either licenced and can receive it for free, or you can purchase it.
Refusing to serve content to those 'outside the UK' is pointless. A simple proxy server will defeat this. If you have a better solution then lets hear it (currently they propose DRM linked to your licence number inside the UK or DRM linked to a key that you can buy if you are outside the UK. The downloads are only to be available for a short period of time (e.g. 7 days) after the original broadcast). This is not being proposed as permanent streaming of all BBC content.
But not every PC in the world comes with Windows installed. There was a/. topic a day or two ago about computers in China which don't have Windows installed - legal or illegal. I have bought computers that had no software installed. It could happen in Sweden, but I don't know for sure. Just because you cannot buy one easily doesn't mean that the rest of the world suffers from the same constraints.
You are spot on regarding capability (1,500 HDTV channels) versus availability (more data than she can ever assimilate but only the same data to which we all have access).
Don't mock the possibility of fibre (European spelling for the Nazis that might be out there...) to every home. Much of Europe (and perhaps other regions also) has managed to avoid the problems that seem to plague internet connections in the USA. Whether its copper or fibre (although copper is far more common) it is unbundled and the user can opt for the best provider rather than being locked into whoever installed it.
I think that you might have blown your argument by using 'becuase (because)', 'righ (right)', 'when is (when was)' and '?? (?)'. Is the content of your reply more important than the presentation, or would you rather we thought you a genius?
So I expect to see all Americans up in arms against the blatant abuse of trade practises by Microsoft, but I won't be trying to hold my breath until it happens...... It seems that it is alright to shout and complain that things are unfair unless, of course, it is an American company that is doing it. Microsoft is getting alongside the Chinese government by ignoring that government's abuses and the way it ignores those rights that Americans say are sacrosanct, the article acknowledges the 'moral problems' that the company had to overcome in order to be successful, it is dumping software, an illegal trade practice, that has been paid for by those who paid full price in the West, it is endangering US jobs by ensuring that foreign companies can have the same tools for a fraction of the price that is paid in the US, and nobody thinks that they should do something about this? I'm not anti-Microsoft but I am anti ANY company that believes that this is the way to do business. That the final bottom line is all that counts. That it doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way as long as it wins. That playing fair is for sissies or that remembering one's heritage and proud history might be important. That America is the most powerful nation on earth, so it must always be right. I'm sure that you feel proud of the nation that you are becoming. I just think it is very, very sad....
So your government has written of the debts of the 3rd world countries, has it? I must have missed that news item. This is not just a matter of democracy but having the ability to move forward, not having to compete on an unlevel playing field with regards to trade, having to toe the line with regard to the nations to which it owes money. If it chooses a different path then it might be invaded on the grounds that 'we bring democracy'. Its not your fault, or mine, that his government is holding him back, but we should ask ourselves why it has to....
Well, I have no complaint against allofmp3.com for providing music. I do not agree with their abuse of copyright. But that is a separate argument although I am yet to be convinced that Russian law was being broken. If a US company and a Russian company are selling similar products (legally!) I will buy the cheaper of the two, all other things being equal. I have nothing against Russian companies (I lived there for 3 years), Chinese companies or even American companies. Because of globalisation, we have to compete against each other. In a fair market those that can sell at a lower price than everyone else (again, all other things being equal) will probably succeed when others fall by the wayside. If we are all going to play the globalisation game, then I do object to protectionism and I do object to companies not obeying the laws of the country in which they are doing business. On a level playing field then I have no problems.
I agree with the sentiment of your suggestion regarding the $7 Windows but I suspect that breaks your own laws as well as the law according to Microsoft (Some countries recognise this as the law of a higher authority, some don't:) ) But the point that you make is absolutely valid. If the product is worth $7, then that is its worth. Capitalism is based on the price that the market will bear. It is our fault for agreeing to pay such a silly price in the first instance rather than the price which Microsoft can sell the product elsewhere and still make a profit - or are you suggesting that they might be using abusive trade practices and dumping software in China?
Isn't that what capitalism is all about? You can charge the price that the market can bear, and the Chinese home market probably can't afford much. The prices charged for MS software in the UK are ridiculous (£=$) but they still seem to sell it. You have been paid for the work that you have done at a price that you agreed. You are not losing money by this move but you will find it increasing difficult to compete in the world. Welcome to globalisation. Microsoft have recouped their investment on the software by selling it at silly prices in the West, so they are not losing money as a company although I am sure that they would like to be making more than the $7 a machine that is quoted in TFA. But I object to Microsoft dictating what software should be on every computer sold anywhere in the world. Legal software I will accept, enforcing Microsoft software (if it happens) is wrong.
Ok, it looks like speed cameras are very common in the USA which I confess surprises me.
"..that can be avoided by using cash." Yes it can, but why do you have to take evasive actions? You have lost the convenience of the credit card simply so that they don't get your spending habits and other data. I prefer our own situation but each to his own, I suppose.
Our speed cameras are not set exactly on the speed limit in the majority of cases. There is a little leeway given but I don't believe that everyone is driving above the speed limit in Europe. Perhaps on UK motorways (where the legal limit is 70mph) more than half of the cars travel at around 80mph and do not get fined for doing so. In Germany there are some autobahns where there is no legal limit. It sounds as if your speed limits are set too low if everyone feels they have to break the limit to stay safe. Several countries in Europe have made a point of speed cameras not being allowed simply as a source of revenue but they must also fulfil a genuine purpose in enforcing safety e.g. don't find a long straight road in the middle of nowhere and impose a speed limit simply to raise revenue. However, if there is a dangerous junction at some point along that road then it is reasonable to ensure that a suitable limit is observed on the approaches to that junction.
It seems to me that the time that people ought to get worried in New York is when the system begins to expand, especially if it then appears that it will be used to reduce people's rights. The current proposal seems to be reasonable but you are more concerned of the eventual possible abuse. Don't elect the politicians that might do such a thing. Tell them what will happen to them if they do.
We complain when cities become congested, when street crime is apparently unchecked, when the police are unable to solve crimes for lack of evidence, when the cost of providing more and more police increases yet again. But when someone suggests a cost-effective system which will play a role in all of these areas (which might be abused in the future if you permit it) then everyone cries out against it. To those who complain, what do they propose as the alternative?
Slashdot Mirror
Not if it was given away for free and the user was entitled to have it. But if by 'free software' you mean (although I do not think that you do in this instance) a copy of Nero CD burner which someone has cracked and is distributing then the MS proposal might cause problems. If MS manage to obtain political and legal approval for the kind of software being described (which I believe is spyware in all but name) then they will be able to look at the contents of the hard drive, not only for information to assist with 'directed advertising', but for any other material. I can imagine that the RIAA/MAFIAA in the US would love to be able to collect such information particularly if there is the method for collecting it is entirely legal. I am of the opinion that no-one should have access to the data on my hard drive other than those that I choose to give it to. The software could also be open to attack by crackers who would have a field day with passwords, bank details, personal information etc. Of course, the way that MS describe it makes it sound almost acceptable but it is the thin end of the wedge.
I am against what this article seems to be proposing is Microsoft's next step and I do not think that everyone will fall for it. But some will. The future OS will do what they want with no intelligence required on their part. They will not care if it is looking at the contents of their hard drive and, unless they are involved in using copyright material without paying for it, then they will probably notice nothing that will affect how they use their computer. Its a shame, but I think MS will get away with this sufficiently for the sales of software and the income from the big businesses that they are cooperating with to balance their books.
I unreservedly apologise. I wish people would learn to quote properly. I promise I will try to learn to read.
I accept the point that you are making, but have you any examples where the company has made 'mistakes' i.e. where it cannot be 'trusted'? If the end result is that they are making no more mistakes now than they ever did (and that such mistakes are rectified when identified) then there might be a good case for their change to the billing format if they are saving you, the customer, money. But I suspect that you are right, because people do not see their bill they no longer know what mistakes are being made.
When he was younger, was he known as Master Bates....? He is now, or at least something similar.
http://noscript.net/
NoScript blocks JavaScript, Java and other executable content.
Which is wrong. What he said is that anyone can give it to them, not just "you". There is a difference between the two statements but I get the feeling that you are both on the same side and arguing over semantics
Have you written to your MP and/or MEP regarding this situation? I have - and I received a favourable reply. Furthermore, on both the previous attempt and the current attempt to introduce software patents failed because my MEP stood/stands against it. That's democracy. I also accept that some in Europe can be very undemocratic and try to misuse procedures to achieve what they cannot achieve through the correct channels. Let them know that YOU don't like this being done in YOUR name and ask you MP/MEP to take a stand against such practices. However, if you don't speak out you cannot complain that nobody listens to you.
We both agree with the principle of non-dependence on proprietary systems, which is precisely why there will be an investigation into the BBC concentrating on Windows systems and ignoring those who use something else. However, I can understand why the BBC needs to have some system of controlling who can view their output even if I disagree with the method they have chosen. But I haven't got a better technical solution to their problem. If you have then you are in a perfect position to make a whole load of money from your idea if you can get it used. But essentially, you have to make sure that licence holders can get it for free because they have already paid for it (which will, of course, not be in your favour) or that non-licence holders can subscribe to it for an additional fee (because they have not already paid for it nor do they have some inherent right to receive it).
You need a licence to watch TV, drive a car, own a firearm, operate an amateur radio station etc. That is a statement of fact. If you don't agree with it you can lobby your MP to get the law overturned. It is entirely unconnected to the payment to the BBC for services that only they provide under the Charter, to and for the Government and population of the UK. Other BBC functions are funded separately, for example, by the MOD, FCO or by private business initiatives. You might consider your non-compliance with the law regarding TV licences a gesture of defiance. I believe that I should obey the law but attempt through the accepted democratic processes to have unfair or unjust laws changed or repealed. This is not a criticism of your actions; it is not my place to judge you or anyone else. I will live my life according the rules of right or wrong that I believe in.
The BBC are funded by the Government (which happens to use the money raised by the licence but try to disconnect the two things. This is simply a matter of convenience and was quite clearly separate a decade ago. Money saving measures have, as I said, muddied the issue somewhat). They are paying the BBC to provide certain services, which the BBC does. Why do you object to the Government having to pay for services that someone provides to it?
OK but that is a battle that will be fought when it occurs. At the moment common sense has prevailed. It might also do so in the future but, like you, I am not optimistic.
And nobody in Europe is forcing software patents upon you. That is the whole thrust of this thread. So your point is what, exactly?
Nobody said the EU is a planet. However, it is part of the universe, just as you are. And no, I'm not saying that you are a planet either.....
No, I'm not quite sure that I follow your argument. The licence is for the purpose of receiving ANY TV broadcast. Therefore, if you watch Sky or ITV you need a licence; you are not paying the BBC in order to watch channels unregulated by them. The requirement for a licence is not linked directly to a specific channel so why do you object to "paying a licence fee to watch channels other than the BBC"? In the same way, a driving licence allows you to drive any car and not just a specific car (within a specific class of vehicle but lets not over-complicate things). The BBC receives government funding because it has obligations to both the state and each licence holder which do not apply to any other UK broadcasting company. Such obligations cost the BBC a lot of money (e.g. maintaining a sustainable broadcast capability for use by the state during times of national emergency or disaster, producing educational programs would wouldn't be cost effective in a purely commercial market (OU etc), no advertising). The other TV channels do not want, nor do they have, similar obligations but they WOULD love to receive additional funding. The Government , rightly in my view, declines to provide it to them. What muddies the situation is that the licence fee is collected by the BBC on behalf of the Government (a cost saving measure that was introduced some time back, it used to be the Government's responsibility) and they are the beneficiaries of the licence fee for the reasons that I explained above. It looks like it is all the same action but, in fact, it is two separate tasks on of which the Treasury has decided to delegate to the BBC in order to save taxpayers' money.
Except you are wrong. The licence permits you to receive ANY TV broadcast, from ANY source, in ANY format. That is what the law says you need the licence for and if you read the licence it is clearly explained. Its just that it all get paid to the BBC whether you want to watch Sky, ITV or something from overseas if you live near the coast.
They want to do 2 things:
Stream to UK licence holding citizens. In which case the service is free (i.e. already paid for). So they have to be able to limit this stream to valid licence holders, hence DRM.
Stream to non-UK licence holding citizens. In which case they can charge for the service but they have to be able to ensure that it is only going to those who have paid, hence DRM.
The problem, as someone has already pointed out, is not with DRM which is the solution to their problem (whether we like it or not!) but the fact that they are only accepting those who use Windows. The BBC licence does not permit this. You are either licenced and can receive it for free, or you can purchase it.
Refusing to serve content to those 'outside the UK' is pointless. A simple proxy server will defeat this. If you have a better solution then lets hear it (currently they propose DRM linked to your licence number inside the UK or DRM linked to a key that you can buy if you are outside the UK. The downloads are only to be available for a short period of time (e.g. 7 days) after the original broadcast). This is not being proposed as permanent streaming of all BBC content.But not every PC in the world comes with Windows installed. There was a /. topic a day or two ago about computers in China which don't have Windows installed - legal or illegal. I have bought computers that had no software installed. It could happen in Sweden, but I don't know for sure. Just because you cannot buy one easily doesn't mean that the rest of the world suffers from the same constraints.
You are spot on regarding capability (1,500 HDTV channels) versus availability (more data than she can ever assimilate but only the same data to which we all have access).
Don't mock the possibility of fibre (European spelling for the Nazis that might be out there...) to every home. Much of Europe (and perhaps other regions also) has managed to avoid the problems that seem to plague internet connections in the USA. Whether its copper or fibre (although copper is far more common) it is unbundled and the user can opt for the best provider rather than being locked into whoever installed it.
Are there only 360 days in your year? Don't you find that calendars are difficult to buy?
Well said. As a fellow European I just have to agree!
I think that you might have blown your argument by using 'becuase (because)', 'righ (right)', 'when is (when was)' and '?? (?)'. Is the content of your reply more important than the presentation, or would you rather we thought you a genius?
So I expect to see all Americans up in arms against the blatant abuse of trade practises by Microsoft, but I won't be trying to hold my breath until it happens...... It seems that it is alright to shout and complain that things are unfair unless, of course, it is an American company that is doing it. Microsoft is getting alongside the Chinese government by ignoring that government's abuses and the way it ignores those rights that Americans say are sacrosanct, the article acknowledges the 'moral problems' that the company had to overcome in order to be successful, it is dumping software, an illegal trade practice, that has been paid for by those who paid full price in the West, it is endangering US jobs by ensuring that foreign companies can have the same tools for a fraction of the price that is paid in the US, and nobody thinks that they should do something about this? I'm not anti-Microsoft but I am anti ANY company that believes that this is the way to do business. That the final bottom line is all that counts. That it doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way as long as it wins. That playing fair is for sissies or that remembering one's heritage and proud history might be important. That America is the most powerful nation on earth, so it must always be right. I'm sure that you feel proud of the nation that you are becoming. I just think it is very, very sad....
So your government has written of the debts of the 3rd world countries, has it? I must have missed that news item. This is not just a matter of democracy but having the ability to move forward, not having to compete on an unlevel playing field with regards to trade, having to toe the line with regard to the nations to which it owes money. If it chooses a different path then it might be invaded on the grounds that 'we bring democracy'. Its not your fault, or mine, that his government is holding him back, but we should ask ourselves why it has to....
Well, I have no complaint against allofmp3.com for providing music. I do not agree with their abuse of copyright. But that is a separate argument although I am yet to be convinced that Russian law was being broken. If a US company and a Russian company are selling similar products (legally!) I will buy the cheaper of the two, all other things being equal. I have nothing against Russian companies (I lived there for 3 years), Chinese companies or even American companies. Because of globalisation, we have to compete against each other. In a fair market those that can sell at a lower price than everyone else (again, all other things being equal) will probably succeed when others fall by the wayside. If we are all going to play the globalisation game, then I do object to protectionism and I do object to companies not obeying the laws of the country in which they are doing business. On a level playing field then I have no problems.
I agree with the sentiment of your suggestion regarding the $7 Windows but I suspect that breaks your own laws as well as the law according to Microsoft (Some countries recognise this as the law of a higher authority, some don't :) ) But the point that you make is absolutely valid. If the product is worth $7, then that is its worth. Capitalism is based on the price that the market will bear. It is our fault for agreeing to pay such a silly price in the first instance rather than the price which Microsoft can sell the product elsewhere and still make a profit - or are you suggesting that they might be using abusive trade practices and dumping software in China?
Isn't that what capitalism is all about? You can charge the price that the market can bear, and the Chinese home market probably can't afford much. The prices charged for MS software in the UK are ridiculous (£=$) but they still seem to sell it. You have been paid for the work that you have done at a price that you agreed. You are not losing money by this move but you will find it increasing difficult to compete in the world. Welcome to globalisation. Microsoft have recouped their investment on the software by selling it at silly prices in the West, so they are not losing money as a company although I am sure that they would like to be making more than the $7 a machine that is quoted in TFA. But I object to Microsoft dictating what software should be on every computer sold anywhere in the world. Legal software I will accept, enforcing Microsoft software (if it happens) is wrong.
Sorry, that should read 'speed cameras are not very common'.
Thinking faster than my fingers will move, or should that be not thinking as fast as my fingers are moving? Either way, my bad.
And I get a Slow Down Cowboy.....!
Ok, it looks like speed cameras are very common in the USA which I confess surprises me.
"..that can be avoided by using cash." Yes it can, but why do you have to take evasive actions? You have lost the convenience of the credit card simply so that they don't get your spending habits and other data. I prefer our own situation but each to his own, I suppose.
Our speed cameras are not set exactly on the speed limit in the majority of cases. There is a little leeway given but I don't believe that everyone is driving above the speed limit in Europe. Perhaps on UK motorways (where the legal limit is 70mph) more than half of the cars travel at around 80mph and do not get fined for doing so. In Germany there are some autobahns where there is no legal limit. It sounds as if your speed limits are set too low if everyone feels they have to break the limit to stay safe. Several countries in Europe have made a point of speed cameras not being allowed simply as a source of revenue but they must also fulfil a genuine purpose in enforcing safety e.g. don't find a long straight road in the middle of nowhere and impose a speed limit simply to raise revenue. However, if there is a dangerous junction at some point along that road then it is reasonable to ensure that a suitable limit is observed on the approaches to that junction.
It seems to me that the time that people ought to get worried in New York is when the system begins to expand, especially if it then appears that it will be used to reduce people's rights. The current proposal seems to be reasonable but you are more concerned of the eventual possible abuse. Don't elect the politicians that might do such a thing. Tell them what will happen to them if they do.
We complain when cities become congested, when street crime is apparently unchecked, when the police are unable to solve crimes for lack of evidence, when the cost of providing more and more police increases yet again. But when someone suggests a cost-effective system which will play a role in all of these areas (which might be abused in the future if you permit it) then everyone cries out against it. To those who complain, what do they propose as the alternative?