Aaron Fox
That Crazy/Not-Crazy Guy
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
- Messages
- 2,547
- Likes received
- 8,265
A good six years ago at SB, I posted a thread asking about about privacy and it's future that started with this video:
Summary: At dConstruct 2014, I spin a tale of the future: not to make a prediction, but to put our current world in perspective. (shamelessly taken from the summary box of said video on YouTube)
Dictatorships rely on secrets, denial of information and concentration of force; when the government is as exposed as the people it becomes very difficult for them too amass the power needed too become a dictatorship without being overthrown before they reach critical mass. A dictatorship always relies on a force of loyal enforcers smaller than the populace they try too oppress, when the movements and organization of this force are impossible too mask it becomes much easier too avoid and out maneuver them. With equal degree of omni-surveillance available too both sides it becomes a numbers game which the populace inevitably wins.
Secret organizations coming in the dark of night too drag away dissenters and throw them into a dark hole only works if the organizations are secret and they can't be tracked
Look it's a technological inevitability that a Panopticon will arise, so we should have a rational discussion (not FEAR FEAR FEAR DOOM) about how society and government should adapt too having a fair and free society in a post-privacy world
There are certainly an enormous number of benefits too a society that can see and record everything. Disasters, crime and accidents become far easier too control and reduce; emergency services can be dispatched the second someone is in trouble; corruption, blackmail and bribery become impossibly hard too pull off without reprisal. Constant monitoring of infrastructure, energy use, transportation, ect allows for vast increase in efficiency of all systems. Diseases and toxins can be tracked in real time, outbreaks that would cause great epidemics isolated quickly and all potential vectors shutoff and tested/cleaned.
The knowledge in the back of your mind that you are potentially being watched and judged will cause people too act more civil too each other, or understand why someone is so upset if you can trawl back through their recent past (family abuse is annihilated in this post-privacy world, bullying, harassment you ain't getting away with that shit)
There is a fuckload of positives too an omnisurveilance society, yet you people seem to be obsessed with it being a terrifying dystopia
Ahh yes the "Your argument falls apart entirely at this one nitpick and thus I don't have to address any of the other points you made"
Classic lazy debating and lack of in depth consideration
Governments already have to dedicate silly huge budgets too information security in crucially sensitive departments like intelligence, and already it is shown too be quite permeable relying more on employee compliance than an airtight information security system.
The vast majority of the government apparatus cannot afford such information security measures, it relies on thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens working office jobs; how do you get anyone too work for you at a cost effective wage if you have too demand they are completely stripped of all electronic devices (which already are practically a part of people, in coming decades they will be basically an indispensable part of a persons being) just too work in a government department?
Governments are made up of people, unless you reduce everyone too mindless automatons or have a gun too their head at all times you aren't going too have a productive and cost effective workforce that is information tight. The only government departments that have scary effective info security are the ones like the CIA and NSA which have enormously drawn out vetting processes and pay their people HUGE salaries with bonuses and pensions too keep them happy and quiet, there is no way that the government can afford too pay everyone in the bureaucracy that handles information the wages of intelligence department workers, and certainly cannot have such complex hiring processes.
In the modern world government policy is already leaked as fast as it is created and the minutes of meetings end up available too people who are interested. The increasing pervasiveness of digital data recording and processing will make it much easier and faster for leaked tidbits of information too be collated together into a coherent picture and built into a story of government scandal
The government can certainly keep some things secret from the people in a surveillance society, with great effort and expense. But what is infeasible is the government keeping secrets on a large enough scale that it can have a secretive government apparatus large and effective enough too openly oppress the people for the evilz. The larger the government group the more difficult it is too keep information from leaking, and the rest of government that cannot afford too hide in super secret evil plotting bunkers will have adapted too operating in open non-secretive politics, their political advantage of full openness makes them very hard too nail down with blackmail and they will gain political support by crusading against the secretive totally not plotting evilz part of government sucking up so much public funds in its effort too hide from the public.
When the parts of government actually busy doing the governing and public relations shit have accepted full openness, they are not going too tolerate secret little government cartels, they become a brilliant target for demonstrating how open and trustworthy you are too the voting public. A poltician that has accepted openness and embraced it will be a terrifying force too fight as another politician/government entity with secrets, especially if secret plotting department relies on the open no-secrets politicians are in charge of dividing up the budget.
____________
Being a monster is entirely relative, we are deep in the dark world of moral relativity in this discussion; black and white morality in decision making becomes impossible
If technology advances too the point where rogue individuals or small groups can be an existential threat too orders of magnitude more people than belong too the group; via weapons of mass destruction, bio plagues, ecosystem crashers, climate sabotage, ect... then the moral calculus balances out too determine that preventing the destruction or grievous harm of vast numbers of people justifies certain actions that seen abhorrently immoral in their own right
It's basically the Trolley Problem but on a Nation State -> Civilization -> Species level depending on how dangerous the threat is.
If technology has developed too the point that small groups can cause vast destruction, then either civilization and the species is doomed; or civilization will adapt too contain and control such threats... by whatever means necessary
Omnipresent surveillance is at least the most morally neutral of countermeasures, it is passive and can detect such problem groups before they can become a major threat and authorities intervene in the most morally just way possible (arrests and psychological treatment) Groups that actually manage too build a threatening weapon will likely be spotted before they can deploy it in an effective manner and the Panopticon system can help authorities manage the emergency response causing the least harm possible too the innocent and the guilty alike.
_____________
The thing is that technology is shifting the balance of risk; biological weapons formerly took years of work and enormously expensive facilities, trial and error, and as a result only States could implement them. With genetics now programmable on computers, the developing field of digitally simulated biology, genetic strings being written in a computer, printed and inserted into cells too create new species... this is only the beginning. The technology and resources required too create a super-plague has gone from state level down too merely company level, and it is inevitably going too fall further too the point that very small groups of individuals can create highly dangerous engineered organisms with equipment and knowledge available too civilians.
There are plenty of omnicidal nuts out there, the people who advocate culling humanity as a cure too environmental exploitation of 'Mother Nature' Would you trust these sorts with the ability too cook up plagues?
So you are confidently asserting that threats too civilization can never come from anything less than full nation states
Please note that I've asked the mods to create this thread and they said that they'll be watching...
Summary: At dConstruct 2014, I spin a tale of the future: not to make a prediction, but to put our current world in perspective. (shamelessly taken from the summary box of said video on YouTube)
To quote my OP:
Now days? I'm of the camp that has our technological context literally rewriting what we assumed is rights and freedoms. That freedoms and rights are fluid both in definition and application.
To quote a rather knowledgeable forum insect:
Now days? I'm of the camp that has our technological context literally rewriting what we assumed is rights and freedoms. That freedoms and rights are fluid both in definition and application.
To quote a rather knowledgeable forum insect:
Between 1990 and today we went from digital cameras costing thousands of dollars and being the size of your head; too costing about 1 cent, are smaller than a fingernail, and everyone having at least one in their pocket at all times directly linked too a global information network upon which many people voluntarily post dozens of pictures every day that are analyzed by hundreds of information analysis programs.
Cameras are getting smaller and cheaper at a geometric rate, facial recognition software has gone from being computer intensive and unreliable, too highly reliable and processing efficient. Internet companies track your identity, interests and purchases simply too advertise too you better.
Human population is plateauing and we are congregating in dense cities while computers are increasing in power, efficiency and number all the time. We will reach a point in the first half of this century where the amount of sensors in a city is so great that the data floating around the net is sufficient too build a full picture of someones life in real time.
In a few decades you will reach the point where sensors are basically smart dust, incorporated into virtually everything; not leaving an easily identifiable trace of your life with such sensor density will be impossible.
The panopticon is a technological inevitability, it is basically the most sure thing we can predict about the coming century.
The fear mongering in this thread
Cameras are getting smaller and cheaper at a geometric rate, facial recognition software has gone from being computer intensive and unreliable, too highly reliable and processing efficient. Internet companies track your identity, interests and purchases simply too advertise too you better.
Human population is plateauing and we are congregating in dense cities while computers are increasing in power, efficiency and number all the time. We will reach a point in the first half of this century where the amount of sensors in a city is so great that the data floating around the net is sufficient too build a full picture of someones life in real time.
In a few decades you will reach the point where sensors are basically smart dust, incorporated into virtually everything; not leaving an easily identifiable trace of your life with such sensor density will be impossible.
The panopticon is a technological inevitability, it is basically the most sure thing we can predict about the coming century.
The fear mongering in this thread
Dictatorships rely on secrets, denial of information and concentration of force; when the government is as exposed as the people it becomes very difficult for them too amass the power needed too become a dictatorship without being overthrown before they reach critical mass. A dictatorship always relies on a force of loyal enforcers smaller than the populace they try too oppress, when the movements and organization of this force are impossible too mask it becomes much easier too avoid and out maneuver them. With equal degree of omni-surveillance available too both sides it becomes a numbers game which the populace inevitably wins.
Secret organizations coming in the dark of night too drag away dissenters and throw them into a dark hole only works if the organizations are secret and they can't be tracked
Look it's a technological inevitability that a Panopticon will arise, so we should have a rational discussion (not FEAR FEAR FEAR DOOM) about how society and government should adapt too having a fair and free society in a post-privacy world
There are certainly an enormous number of benefits too a society that can see and record everything. Disasters, crime and accidents become far easier too control and reduce; emergency services can be dispatched the second someone is in trouble; corruption, blackmail and bribery become impossibly hard too pull off without reprisal. Constant monitoring of infrastructure, energy use, transportation, ect allows for vast increase in efficiency of all systems. Diseases and toxins can be tracked in real time, outbreaks that would cause great epidemics isolated quickly and all potential vectors shutoff and tested/cleaned.
The knowledge in the back of your mind that you are potentially being watched and judged will cause people too act more civil too each other, or understand why someone is so upset if you can trawl back through their recent past (family abuse is annihilated in this post-privacy world, bullying, harassment you ain't getting away with that shit)
There is a fuckload of positives too an omnisurveilance society, yet you people seem to be obsessed with it being a terrifying dystopia
Ahh yes the "Your argument falls apart entirely at this one nitpick and thus I don't have to address any of the other points you made"
Classic lazy debating and lack of in depth consideration
Governments already have to dedicate silly huge budgets too information security in crucially sensitive departments like intelligence, and already it is shown too be quite permeable relying more on employee compliance than an airtight information security system.
The vast majority of the government apparatus cannot afford such information security measures, it relies on thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens working office jobs; how do you get anyone too work for you at a cost effective wage if you have too demand they are completely stripped of all electronic devices (which already are practically a part of people, in coming decades they will be basically an indispensable part of a persons being) just too work in a government department?
Governments are made up of people, unless you reduce everyone too mindless automatons or have a gun too their head at all times you aren't going too have a productive and cost effective workforce that is information tight. The only government departments that have scary effective info security are the ones like the CIA and NSA which have enormously drawn out vetting processes and pay their people HUGE salaries with bonuses and pensions too keep them happy and quiet, there is no way that the government can afford too pay everyone in the bureaucracy that handles information the wages of intelligence department workers, and certainly cannot have such complex hiring processes.
In the modern world government policy is already leaked as fast as it is created and the minutes of meetings end up available too people who are interested. The increasing pervasiveness of digital data recording and processing will make it much easier and faster for leaked tidbits of information too be collated together into a coherent picture and built into a story of government scandal
The government can certainly keep some things secret from the people in a surveillance society, with great effort and expense. But what is infeasible is the government keeping secrets on a large enough scale that it can have a secretive government apparatus large and effective enough too openly oppress the people for the evilz. The larger the government group the more difficult it is too keep information from leaking, and the rest of government that cannot afford too hide in super secret evil plotting bunkers will have adapted too operating in open non-secretive politics, their political advantage of full openness makes them very hard too nail down with blackmail and they will gain political support by crusading against the secretive totally not plotting evilz part of government sucking up so much public funds in its effort too hide from the public.
When the parts of government actually busy doing the governing and public relations shit have accepted full openness, they are not going too tolerate secret little government cartels, they become a brilliant target for demonstrating how open and trustworthy you are too the voting public. A poltician that has accepted openness and embraced it will be a terrifying force too fight as another politician/government entity with secrets, especially if secret plotting department relies on the open no-secrets politicians are in charge of dividing up the budget.
____________
Being a monster is entirely relative, we are deep in the dark world of moral relativity in this discussion; black and white morality in decision making becomes impossible
If technology advances too the point where rogue individuals or small groups can be an existential threat too orders of magnitude more people than belong too the group; via weapons of mass destruction, bio plagues, ecosystem crashers, climate sabotage, ect... then the moral calculus balances out too determine that preventing the destruction or grievous harm of vast numbers of people justifies certain actions that seen abhorrently immoral in their own right
It's basically the Trolley Problem but on a Nation State -> Civilization -> Species level depending on how dangerous the threat is.
If technology has developed too the point that small groups can cause vast destruction, then either civilization and the species is doomed; or civilization will adapt too contain and control such threats... by whatever means necessary
Omnipresent surveillance is at least the most morally neutral of countermeasures, it is passive and can detect such problem groups before they can become a major threat and authorities intervene in the most morally just way possible (arrests and psychological treatment) Groups that actually manage too build a threatening weapon will likely be spotted before they can deploy it in an effective manner and the Panopticon system can help authorities manage the emergency response causing the least harm possible too the innocent and the guilty alike.
_____________
The thing is that technology is shifting the balance of risk; biological weapons formerly took years of work and enormously expensive facilities, trial and error, and as a result only States could implement them. With genetics now programmable on computers, the developing field of digitally simulated biology, genetic strings being written in a computer, printed and inserted into cells too create new species... this is only the beginning. The technology and resources required too create a super-plague has gone from state level down too merely company level, and it is inevitably going too fall further too the point that very small groups of individuals can create highly dangerous engineered organisms with equipment and knowledge available too civilians.
There are plenty of omnicidal nuts out there, the people who advocate culling humanity as a cure too environmental exploitation of 'Mother Nature' Would you trust these sorts with the ability too cook up plagues?
So you are confidently asserting that threats too civilization can never come from anything less than full nation states
How could you possibly justify this claim, history is rife with small groups or individuals that caused great catastrophes through their own selfish philosophically driven actions; even if the ultimate destructive force was the war machines of nation states it was non-state-aligned individuals who tipped the balance from rational diplomatic confrontation too armed conflict
Please note that I've asked the mods to create this thread and they said that they'll be watching...
