5 ms·

I'm not talking about the state exclusively, nor am I talking about your online activities. I'm saying you will have a camera and microphone trained on you, alw

by thom 11y ago

I'm not talking about the state exclusively, nor am I talking about your online activities. I'm saying you will have a camera and microphone trained on you, always. My personal AI assistant - smart but not nearly sentient - knows to highlight the most titillating segments, which I have just captioned and published for all to see (anonymously, over an encrypted connection). It's great that one's ISP doesn't know what porn site one is visiting, but 4chan are nevertheless streaming a video of one in the act. I fail to see how this technology - small, cheap, highly capable and connected drones - will fail to come about in the next 50-100 years. And because of that, I seriously think we need to mentally prepare for living much more publicly than we do now.

newjersey 11y ago
This is why I strongly oppose the drone strikes. Nobody should be killed by the state (except I guess by soldiers in self defense). I especially so not like the idea of killing someone probably at home in pajamas eating Cheerios at five pm in the evening local time. I don't think there is any justification for that even if the person in question is a flight risk and has been the mastermind behind millions of death. Such a killing with no attempt to detain runs afoul of my morals. This is worse than capital punishment which I also strongly oppose for any situation.
- beeboop 11y ago
  I think your concern about lack of due process should be more focused on the tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian bystanders the US has killed since 2001. We are killing dozens of women and children overseas every week and chalk them up as collateral damage.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    I am honestly not worried about collateral damage. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem. When we talk about collateral damage in case of unprovoked attacks, we are minimizing the issue. If we are not willing to risk our soldiers to capture people who are not firing at us, then we should not try to capture or kill those people. I think it is pretty simple. If they are worth killing with a drone, they are worth sacrificing the lives of our soldiers in an attempt to catch them dead or alive. Whether there is any collateral damage is not the issue.
    - beeboop 11y ago
      > If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem. You very well might be a sociopath.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        I am not a very smart person so I looked up the definition of sociopath. > Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy Well, I might be a sociopath. Don't get me wrong. I think babies are very cute and would go out of my way to save an infant's life. However, I cannot command others to imperil their own lives to maybe not kill an infant. Not to derail the topic too much but it bothers me that people think the collateral deaths of "innocent women and children" in an extrajudicial drone strike are worse than the death of the target. The collateral damage would not have happened if we didn't shoot in the first place. I am not saying we should be isolationist or even that we should not exercise restraint in use of force (even in self defense), far from it. I am just asking that we approach the topic as rationally as we can. Now, we should be clear as to why we try to save infants and small children first in an emergency. Here is the article that made me think about this http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/01/children-are-special-but-not-particularly-important.html http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/01/children-ar... but it makes sense what I read a while back. It is not because they are more important (far from it, society has much more invested in growing up a working adult) but because the infants and children are more vulnerable. It made a world of sense when I thought about it this way. When it comes to a fire, I can see how a healthy adult can survive longer suffocating in a smokey room as opposed to an infant. I think a trained fireman or a nurse can do triage pretty will without someone screaming in their face "why won't you attend to my baby first?" In most situations, we would probably care for infants and young children before anyone else. However, like with everything in life, we should think about why and not just what. A person who has killed millions of people has the same right life as a newly born infant and we shouldn't try to sidestep difficult questions and scream "why won't you think of the children" just looking for an emotional response.
beeboop 11y ago
I guess I thought the drones were a joke or hyperbole in your post. There are a lot of things that make me not concerned about your scenario. Firstly, cameras are easily defeated, especially by technology 50 years from now. You're presently a single curtain away from defeating them. In the future it might be some non-human visible light array that blinds a camera (these already exist today but aren't very common). Who knows. Secondly, most people benefit from security and privacy through obscurity. No one cares about what 99% of people do. The other 1% will have easy means for protecting privacy, whether it be closing their curtains or some futuristic piece of technology. Thirdly, I think expectations of privacy are going to naturally diminish a lot in the future. Sexuality will probably be a lot less stigmatized, and no one will care whether a state senator is jackin it to gay scat porn. However advanced drones get, the technology to counter them bothering you will no doubt be a lot more advanced.
jrnichols 11y ago
> It's great that one's ISP doesn't know what porn site one is visiting, Well.... that seems to be the way Utah is heading, with the support of anti-porn crusaders (many of whom are radical feminists - that's originally where I found this link) http://fightthenewdrug.org/state-of-utah-makes-history-declares-pornography-a-public-health-crisis/ http://fightthenewdrug.org/state-of-utah-makes-history-decla... "One of the proposed directions is to see the government work with internet providers to allow pornography only on an opt-in basis."

by thom 11y ago

newjersey 11y ago

This is why I strongly oppose the drone strikes. Nobody should be killed by the state (except I guess by soldiers in self defense). I especially so not like the idea of killing someone probably at home in pajamas eating Cheerios at five pm in the evening local time. I don't think there is any justification for that even if the person in question is a flight risk and has been the mastermind behind millions of death. Such a killing with no attempt to detain runs afoul of my morals. This is worse than capital punishment which I also strongly oppose for any situation.

beeboop 11y ago
I think your concern about lack of due process should be more focused on the tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian bystanders the US has killed since 2001. We are killing dozens of women and children overseas every week and chalk them up as collateral damage.
- newjersey 11y ago
  I am honestly not worried about collateral damage. If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem. When we talk about collateral damage in case of unprovoked attacks, we are minimizing the issue. If we are not willing to risk our soldiers to capture people who are not firing at us, then we should not try to capture or kill those people. I think it is pretty simple. If they are worth killing with a drone, they are worth sacrificing the lives of our soldiers in an attempt to catch them dead or alive. Whether there is any collateral damage is not the issue.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    > If someone is shooting at you, you shoot right back at them regardless of whether they are standing behind a hundred babies. That is not a problem. You very well might be a sociopath.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      I am not a very smart person so I looked up the definition of sociopath. > Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy Well, I might be a sociopath. Don't get me wrong. I think babies are very cute and would go out of my way to save an infant's life. However, I cannot command others to imperil their own lives to maybe not kill an infant. Not to derail the topic too much but it bothers me that people think the collateral deaths of "innocent women and children" in an extrajudicial drone strike are worse than the death of the target. The collateral damage would not have happened if we didn't shoot in the first place. I am not saying we should be isolationist or even that we should not exercise restraint in use of force (even in self defense), far from it. I am just asking that we approach the topic as rationally as we can. Now, we should be clear as to why we try to save infants and small children first in an emergency. Here is the article that made me think about this http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/01/children-are-special-but-not-particularly-important.html http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/01/children-ar... but it makes sense what I read a while back. It is not because they are more important (far from it, society has much more invested in growing up a working adult) but because the infants and children are more vulnerable. It made a world of sense when I thought about it this way. When it comes to a fire, I can see how a healthy adult can survive longer suffocating in a smokey room as opposed to an infant. I think a trained fireman or a nurse can do triage pretty will without someone screaming in their face "why won't you attend to my baby first?" In most situations, we would probably care for infants and young children before anyone else. However, like with everything in life, we should think about why and not just what. A person who has killed millions of people has the same right life as a newly born infant and we shouldn't try to sidestep difficult questions and scream "why won't you think of the children" just looking for an emotional response.

beeboop 11y ago

I guess I thought the drones were a joke or hyperbole in your post. There are a lot of things that make me not concerned about your scenario. Firstly, cameras are easily defeated, especially by technology 50 years from now. You're presently a single curtain away from defeating them. In the future it might be some non-human visible light array that blinds a camera (these already exist today but aren't very common). Who knows. Secondly, most people benefit from security and privacy through obscurity. No one cares about what 99% of people do. The other 1% will have easy means for protecting privacy, whether it be closing their curtains or some futuristic piece of technology. Thirdly, I think expectations of privacy are going to naturally diminish a lot in the future. Sexuality will probably be a lot less stigmatized, and no one will care whether a state senator is jackin it to gay scat porn. However advanced drones get, the technology to counter them bothering you will no doubt be a lot more advanced.

jrnichols 11y ago

> It's great that one's ISP doesn't know what porn site one is visiting, Well.... that seems to be the way Utah is heading, with the support of anti-porn crusaders (many of whom are radical feminists - that's originally where I found this link) http://fightthenewdrug.org/state-of-utah-makes-history-declares-pornography-a-public-health-crisis/ http://fightthenewdrug.org/state-of-utah-makes-history-decla... "One of the proposed directions is to see the government work with internet providers to allow pornography only on an opt-in basis."