5 ms·

Define "criminals" in the context of a panopticon.

• fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  Why would the definition change in that context?
  • jobead 10y ago
    I think his point is that when you watch anyone long enough, they become criminals. So if you watch everyone, everyone becomes a criminal.
    • fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      Possibly, but that doesn't change the definition of "criminals".
      • wolfgke 10y ago
        It does: One is a criminal if the prosecution in a lawsuit can convince the judge that the accused is a criminal. Some evidence can only be collected in a panopticon which can make a difference in the trial. It would only make no difference if the result of the trial would be independent of the additional evidence that a surveillance state could in principle collect. But this would mean that the surveillance state is not necessary.
        • fauigerzigerk 10y ago
          Then the source of our disagreement is simply this: Is the definition of "criminal" (a) Someone who has committed a crime (b) Someone who was convicted of a crime he may or may not have committed I was using (a). If you are using (b) then I understand where you're coming from. But I think it's not a good idea to use (b) because that would make everyone who is the victim of a miscarriage of justice a criminal when in fact they are not.
          • elbear 10y ago
            Almost every person on this planet has committed a crime at some point. Sometimes we do it, because we believe it to be insignificant. Sometimes we are not aware that we are committing that crime. I watched an excellent speech of a law professor giving examples of people who broke the law without realising. Unfortunately, I don't remember how to find that video.
            • fauigerzigerk 10y ago
              Absolutely, and I'm not a proponent of the surveillance state as some here seem to think. My point is that law makers define what a crime is. The effectiveness of law enforcement doesn't change that fact. It's not good to have laws on the statute book that wouldn't be there if only they could be enforced. So if the surveillance state highlights the fact that we're all criminals, what that should tell us is that criminal law is in urgent need of a root and branch review. The surveillance state is a very bad idea for many reasons. But saying that we reject the surveillance state because then laws could actually be enforced is a questionable argument. There are many better ones.
              • CiPHPerCoder 10y ago
                Start over from zero: We have these civil rights and no one, not even the government, may not impede on them. And then criminalize things that make sense to criminalize. Odds are, in a few hundred years, we'll end up right back where we started.
  • wolfgke 10y ago
    For example the case of the social scientist Andrej Holm (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrej_Holm&oldid=150411384#Ermittlungsverfahren_wegen_Verdachts_der_Mitgliedschaft_in_einer_terroristischen_Vereinigung https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrej_Holm&oldid... - in German) who researched in the internet using some keywords ("Gentrification" and "Prekarisierung" (casualization)) that were also used by the terror group mg (militante gruppe ("militant group")) and thus got into the crossfire of the surveillance state.
    • fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      So someone was wrongly accused of a crime because the methods of catching criminals (that is the surveillance state) turned out to be flawed. I still don't see how that changes the definition of what "criminals" are.
      • wolfgke 10y ago
        If there weren't the surveillance state, he'd never be put into pretrial imprisonment (for which strong prior evidence that he is indeed a criminal is necessary). So thanks to the surveillance state he was handled as a criminal.
        • fauigerzigerk 10y ago
          Yes he was accused and then acquitted. That doesn't change the definition of "criminals". The surveillance state may change the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. But in my view, the much more important problem is that the surveillance state makes people afraid of getting wrongly accused of a crime. They stop doing perfectly legal things because they might be difficult to explain. I have observed that in my own behavior and I know others who have become very defensive in their use of the internet.