4 ms·

>This is a direct path to a totalitarian surveillance state... My critique of this argument is that it has no bounds. Totalitarian surveillance states are very

>This is a direct path to a totalitarian surveillance state... My critique of this argument is that it has no bounds. Totalitarian surveillance states are very possible without modern (2000+) electronic devices and have existed for a good half century. To add to that, there are many other technologies that are essential to the kind of centralized bureaucracy that totalitarian states generally use. Without electronic communication, it would be extremely difficult to disseminate policy. Without electronic storage, it would be very hard to collate descriptions of suspects and centralize information. The parts of the Catholic church of the middle ages would very much have liked to run a totalitarian state - but it was beyond the technology of the time. So, if you think we should oppose technology that allows states to survival and terrorize their citizens, there is a longer list to go after: police, vehicles, computers, electricity, etc. All of these technologies gave rise to fears that they would restrict freedom and those fears were ultimately realized. In many ways, we are far less free than people who lived in societies without electricity or cars or any of those things. However, we are also safer from many groups that used to use their freedom to take advantage of others (though not all, obviously). I agree that this kind of electronic surveillance (or, more specifically, the ability for machines to collect and collate information) is transformative. It's similar to other technologies that changed things - the telegram, electricity, plumbing, etc. It will alter the balance of power and we, as citizens, should think about how we want this technology used and not used. However, I find the idea that this technology _in particular_ is any more or less totalitarian than ones that have come before it to be silly on its face.

Zigurd 11y ago
Pre-automation surveillance states were people and paper-intensive. They didn't scale. The most powerful analytics were out of their reach. They couldn't sweep up everything and discover what was important. And, in the end, they were overthrown by a combination of discontent, internal sabotage, and a variety of external influences. Be that as it may, the FBI isn't above reaching back to the old ways. They run 15,000 paid informants nationwide, backed by the information dredged up by pervasive surveillance. Parallel construction is just the beginning of what that cyberspace/meatspace combination is capable of. With the NSA and pervasive surveillance, it is possible to build an eternal, indestructible static system, governed by an elite, and with the appearance of representation.
- aeturnum 11y ago
  >Pre-automation surveillance states were people and paper-intensive. They didn't scale. Tell that to people who lived in eastern block countries. I agree that this technology, like all communication technology, makes it easier for governments to repress their people. However, I don't think there's any reason to believe this is the straw that finally subjugates all mankind under tyrannical government or that this technology will be any different than previous advances. As I said before, this is only one of many technologies that are necessary to run the theoretical nightmare scenario you've outlined. The main difference, from my point of view, is that that other technologies are older and the doomsday scenarios predicted with the rise of telephones, computers and other advances have not come to pass. At the same time, we've had plenty of time to appreciate the advantages of older technology and balance its use in society. For the recent Paris terror attacks, at least some of the planning was done over text messages. The text messaging system is a better fit for the kind of dystopic observation you're describing: the infrastructure is more centralized, there is lots of legal precedent for observation, there are weak safeguards and no fancy voice recognition is necessary. Of course, the only way we know about the text messages is that they found a physical phone - because despite 20 years of commercial availability - such monitoring is not in place for text messages.

Zigurd 11y ago

Pre-automation surveillance states were people and paper-intensive. They didn't scale. The most powerful analytics were out of their reach. They couldn't sweep up everything and discover what was important. And, in the end, they were overthrown by a combination of discontent, internal sabotage, and a variety of external influences. Be that as it may, the FBI isn't above reaching back to the old ways. They run 15,000 paid informants nationwide, backed by the information dredged up by pervasive surveillance. Parallel construction is just the beginning of what that cyberspace/meatspace combination is capable of. With the NSA and pervasive surveillance, it is possible to build an eternal, indestructible static system, governed by an elite, and with the appearance of representation.

aeturnum 11y ago
>Pre-automation surveillance states were people and paper-intensive. They didn't scale. Tell that to people who lived in eastern block countries. I agree that this technology, like all communication technology, makes it easier for governments to repress their people. However, I don't think there's any reason to believe this is the straw that finally subjugates all mankind under tyrannical government or that this technology will be any different than previous advances. As I said before, this is only one of many technologies that are necessary to run the theoretical nightmare scenario you've outlined. The main difference, from my point of view, is that that other technologies are older and the doomsday scenarios predicted with the rise of telephones, computers and other advances have not come to pass. At the same time, we've had plenty of time to appreciate the advantages of older technology and balance its use in society. For the recent Paris terror attacks, at least some of the planning was done over text messages. The text messaging system is a better fit for the kind of dystopic observation you're describing: the infrastructure is more centralized, there is lots of legal precedent for observation, there are weak safeguards and no fancy voice recognition is necessary. Of course, the only way we know about the text messages is that they found a physical phone - because despite 20 years of commercial availability - such monitoring is not in place for text messages.