4 ms·
Your first statement is correct, but not because of what you said in your second. Google "ubiquitous law enforcement" for some good reading.
by dmd 10y ago
Your first statement is correct, but not because of what you said in your second. Google "ubiquitous law enforcement" for some good reading.
- Bartweiss 10y agoThat was an excellent read, as Vernor Vinge usually is. I've certainly used anti-surveillance arguments like "what if some employee misuses the data", and I mean them, but it's not my fundamental objection. On a much deeper level, I worry about surveillance as an inherent harm. Partly as the death of privacy (a right in itself, to me), largely as a de facto power transfer to the state. I think Seeing Like a State is right when it argues that states depend on 'legibility'. If it can't be logged, measured, or predicted, it can't be handled on the statistical level where states have to operate. And so everything that increases the legibility of our lives eases the real power of the state, without any need to expand its legal power.
- pdkl95 10y ago> Seeing Like a State is right when it argues that states depend on 'legibility'. http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burning-world/ http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burn...