"Consumers" as an opaque crowd wouldn't be able to judge anything this involved. The discussion partners we're talking about are mostly politicians, who are primarily educated in the field of convincing despite having no background at all, referring to higher authority et al. Our typical, maybe even scientifically educated consumer wouldn't be able in the least of realistically forming an opposing opinion, and even if she/he did, it would be a very hard sell against battle-hardened politicians.
This field is too complex even for quite a few if not most IT-centric professions.
From my point of view, we have to put the blame on us. We should treat anyone supporting invasive technologies (in the sense of subverting privacy and basic human rights) as an outcast.
The impression I get (maybe not primarily from HN) is the opposite. We'd not take that job (pay...), but still we appear to honor their efforts. Or we _do_ take that job because of pay on the opposite spectrum.
This field is too complex even for quite a few if not most IT-centric professions.
From my point of view, we have to put the blame on us. We should treat anyone supporting invasive technologies (in the sense of subverting privacy and basic human rights) as an outcast.
The impression I get (maybe not primarily from HN) is the opposite. We'd not take that job (pay...), but still we appear to honor their efforts. Or we _do_ take that job because of pay on the opposite spectrum.