3 ms·

I think you are correct. My concern is that in the near future we're going to start seeing citizens scored on how much of a threat they are to the government.

I think you are correct. My concern is that in the near future we're going to start seeing citizens scored on how much of a threat they are to the government. The scoring will be driven by comments in forums such as these. And that scoring system will not distinguish folks who are peaceful yet very angry from folks who are very angry and could become violent. Combine that with automated enforcement of laws and we could be in a real world of shit. I don't care which party runs the government. I'll even say screw it about how big the government is. We can have that fight another day. But over the last decade or two we're seeing the feedback systems break down. That's totally fucked. (For comparison, think about the political tornado that happened in the 70s when the U.S. intelligence services were caught screwing up. Now compare that to them being caught doing as bad or worse things over the last few years.)

whatok 10y ago
Might want to take a look at this https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/chinas-nightmarish-citizen-scores-are-warning-americans https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/chinas-nightmarish-cit...
woodman 10y ago
Such scoring already occurs, the most obvious example I can think of is the security clearance process. It can be argued that such a filtering is necessary in order to keep those no good commies out, but consider the sort of self protecting cultural feedback loop that creates. I always had to stifle laughter when the question was asked "Have you ever belonged to an organization that advocates the overthrow of the USG?" I'm not laughing anymore, because depending on the interpretation of a couple of words, you can face some pretty serious consequences. US Code 18 § 2385 specifies "by force or violence", but I've never heard that qualifier used. The gulf between the interviewer and interviewee has grown to the point that Janet Napolitano's report, advising LEAs of the domestic terrorism risk posed by veterans, caused a lot of soul searching among law enforcement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

whatok 10y ago

Might want to take a look at this https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/chinas-nightmarish-citizen-scores-are-warning-americans https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/chinas-nightmarish-cit...

woodman 10y ago

Such scoring already occurs, the most obvious example I can think of is the security clearance process. It can be argued that such a filtering is necessary in order to keep those no good commies out, but consider the sort of self protecting cultural feedback loop that creates. I always had to stifle laughter when the question was asked "Have you ever belonged to an organization that advocates the overthrow of the USG?" I'm not laughing anymore, because depending on the interpretation of a couple of words, you can face some pretty serious consequences. US Code 18 § 2385 specifies "by force or violence", but I've never heard that qualifier used. The gulf between the interviewer and interviewee has grown to the point that Janet Napolitano's report, advising LEAs of the domestic terrorism risk posed by veterans, caused a lot of soul searching among law enforcement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385