It's really not too much to ask smokers to not externalize the health problems of their addiction to other people. On the contrary, a decent human being would not willingly expose non-smokers to cigarette smoke. Unfortunately, there's not enough decency around to outweight convenience, so it had to be turned into law.
As for telemetry, I can't find any reason one would willingly subject to it. But even if, that's why laws like GDPR don't ban it outright, just ask for it to be optional and opt-in.
>It's really not too much to ask smokers to not externalize
Sure, from the perspective of non-smokers.
>On the contrary, a decent human being would not willingly expose non-smokers to cigarette smoke
A decent non smoker can also excuse themselves, in order not to disturb the smokers.
>Unfortunately, there's not enough decency around to outweight convenience, so it had to be turned into law
This is nothing to do with decency, the smokers doesn't have enough power/influence to prevent it to become law.
Lets say in a place where 95% are smokers, or even in the place there are 5% smokers but those 5% has a lot of power/influence. Do you think there will be law againts smokers ?
>As for telemetry, I can't find any reason one would willingly subject to it
You mean willingly subject to tracking ? Like I said before, I am fine with tracking because the benefit outweight the cost, it gives me something in return, free or cheap service.
From the perspective of any moral human being. Not intentionally harming others is kind of fundamental.
> A decent non smoker can also excuse themselves, in order not to disturb the smokers.
Non-smokers came first. And there's more of them. Plus, non-smokers are at best inconvenience to smokers, while smokers are a health hazard to non-smokers.
> Lets say in a place where 95% are smokers, or even in the place there are 5% smokers but those 5% has a lot of power/influence. Do you think there will be law againts smokers ?
Not likely. If the smokers are decent people, there won't be a problem; if they aren't, they obviously won't vote in laws that inconvenience them. But that only tells about deficiencies of the regulatory process, which optimizes for the loudest voices instead of maximizing good for everyone.
> Like I said before, I am fine with tracking because the benefit outweight the cost, it gives me something in return, free or cheap service.
And like I said, that's why current legal standard people are leaning towards is not to ban it, but to make it opt-in. So if you're fine with tracking, you can have it. The problem is with the infectious, anticompetitive nature of tracking - once one party does it to offset their costs, all other competitors have to follow suit or risk getting outcompeted.
>From the perspective of any moral human being. Not intentionally harming others is kind of fundamental.
Sure, at least from your perspective. But all human being ? Even now we disagree.
There are some people that to them harming people is the moral thing to do.
You may then say they are wrong, but again you view it from your morality, using your definition of 'wrong'.
>Non-smokers came first.
Sure, for the Non-smokers, Non-smokers came first.
>And there's more of them
Right, so its more to do with which side has more power/influence.
>Plus, non-smokers are at best inconvenience to smokers
Sure the non-smokers can dismiss it as merely inconvenience. But I'm sure there is some smokers that are highly suffer from not able to smoke anywhere anytime.
>Not likely. If the smokers are decent people, there won't be a problem
Again, some smokers can use the same argument, if the non-smokers are decent people, they can excuse themselves and there won't be a problem.
>if they aren't, they obviously won't vote in laws that inconvenience them
While I'm sure within smokers there are people who support the law, but I'm taking about the smokers who againts the law. Unfortunately, they fail or just don't have enough power/influence to prevent the law to exist.
>deficiencies of the regulatory process, which optimizes for the loudest voices instead of maximizing good for everyone
Its not deficiencies because it just the way it is, whichever side who are the strongest get to decide the law.
Maximizing good for everyone is an impossibility. What one human consider as good may be considered bad to other human.
>And like I said, that's why current legal standard people are leaning towards is not to ban it, but to make it opt-in. So if you're fine with tracking, you can have it
Sure if you can gain the power/influence to make it law. But I hope not and I will not support it. why ? It increase friction/inconvenience. Just like the cookie warning, its highly annoying, I would much prefer it to be opt-out or no option at all.
As for telemetry, I can't find any reason one would willingly subject to it. But even if, that's why laws like GDPR don't ban it outright, just ask for it to be optional and opt-in.