3 ms·

The "Socrates" of this article believes he's safer if his entire life is monitored rather than just part. So much wrong with this. 1 - What about no surveilla

The "Socrates" of this article believes he's safer if his entire life is monitored rather than just part. So much wrong with this. 1 - What about no surveillance until there is a reasonable suspicion confirmed by an impartial Judge (see 4th Amendment to the Constitution for details)? 2 - Ok, he feels safer with Big Brother looking after him ... but apparently that justifies in his mind that everyone should be watched since he prefers it for himself. Is that narcissism or just sloppy thinking? 3 - One of the many dangers of this sort of surveillance is the bizarre notion that we are the data collected. There is NO level of surveillance that equates to the actual knowledge of the self (sorry Google, NSA, etc.). Think about it for yourself - is there any data set large enough that it would capture without misunderstanding who you are? Now remember that the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet have just as rich lives (inner and outer) as you. On that last point, keep in mind the so called "targeted" ads that Google uses. Or the movie/book suggestions from sites that use them. Now imagine such bizarre misunderstandings leading our NSA big brothers to act. Not a pretty picture. Larger and more haystacks aren't the solution. Realizing that humans aren't stacks of data is.

ewzimm 11y ago
Just to play Devil's Advocate, real total surveillance might not be bad. If you were hooked into a system that actually monitored all minds in real time and connected you directly to whatever other mind you wanted to reach out to with no misunderstanding, you'd have a hive mind that was no longer human but might be capable of more complicated thoughts. It's been done plenty of times in science fiction, but now we're getting to the point where we can actually transmit some information directly from mind to mind. I think there's room for voluntary connectivity without being invasive. There should always be a way to have total privacy whenever it's desired, and that should be true for the near future without question. But there's a chance that at some point, people won't even want it anymore. If it happens voluntarily as people become more comfortable with each other, I'm not sure if it will even be bad. Forced is no good of course, and using surveillance to impose oligarchical control is terrible, but if we move gradually, I don't think anyone can really predict how it might turn out.
- noblethrasher 11y ago
  I know this idea has oft been explored in science fiction, but if you haven't seen it, I recommend that you check out the series Psycho-Pass. It has an interesting and intellectually hefty take on the subject.
chatmasta 11y ago
> Think about it for yourself - is there any data set large enough that it would capture without misunderstanding who you are? One could argue that many readily available datasets "capture" any given person with a higher degree of accuracy than that person "captures" himself. People are subject to all sorts of subconscious biases that influence their own self-perception. Cold, hard data about the self is often more accurate than one's own understanding of oneself.

ewzimm 11y ago

Just to play Devil's Advocate, real total surveillance might not be bad. If you were hooked into a system that actually monitored all minds in real time and connected you directly to whatever other mind you wanted to reach out to with no misunderstanding, you'd have a hive mind that was no longer human but might be capable of more complicated thoughts. It's been done plenty of times in science fiction, but now we're getting to the point where we can actually transmit some information directly from mind to mind. I think there's room for voluntary connectivity without being invasive. There should always be a way to have total privacy whenever it's desired, and that should be true for the near future without question. But there's a chance that at some point, people won't even want it anymore. If it happens voluntarily as people become more comfortable with each other, I'm not sure if it will even be bad. Forced is no good of course, and using surveillance to impose oligarchical control is terrible, but if we move gradually, I don't think anyone can really predict how it might turn out.

noblethrasher 11y ago
I know this idea has oft been explored in science fiction, but if you haven't seen it, I recommend that you check out the series Psycho-Pass. It has an interesting and intellectually hefty take on the subject.

chatmasta 11y ago

> Think about it for yourself - is there any data set large enough that it would capture without misunderstanding who you are? One could argue that many readily available datasets "capture" any given person with a higher degree of accuracy than that person "captures" himself. People are subject to all sorts of subconscious biases that influence their own self-perception. Cold, hard data about the self is often more accurate than one's own understanding of oneself.