3 ms·

At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. Today, only the rich and powerful have mass surveillance capabilities. But if we embrace surveillan

by tfha 9y ago

At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. Today, only the rich and powerful have mass surveillance capabilities. But if we embrace surveillance, we can give that power to everyone. It's much harder to do selective enforcement when the same strategies can be turned on the prosecutor.

mulmen 9y ago
I disagree with this solution. Privacy has utility and when you give it up you do lose something. Even if we give it up to each other we are still in a worse place.
- tfha 9y ago
  You may disagree with the solution, but I don't see how privacy can be preserved given the technology we are building. Cameras getting smaller, and better. Microphones getting smaller, and better. Drones getting smaller and better. And all cheaper as well. Storage and search is also getting better and cheaper. The tide may be far away, but it's rushing in and you can't stop it. We must embrace the water.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Giving up a right is not an effective way of preventing it from being stolen. Technology is continually improving but we still have a say in how it is used. I have no respect for this or any other defeatist strategy.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > We must embrace the water. No. Just because it seems inevitable does not mean I must embrace it. I refuse to embrace it. While the things that are used to perform secret surveillance improve, the things that are used to uncover secret surveillance also improve. I am not going to willingly give up my privacy.
pdkl95 9y ago
> we can give that power to everyone Just like how "voting" gave everyone useful legislative influence? A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Tom Scott's "Oversight"[1] is warning, not a recommendation. > the same strategies can be turned on the prosecutor. Having evidence about a prosecutor's misdeeds doesn't mean you have the power to enforce anything. We already have police walking away from from video evidence of murder without charges. That will change with a lot more active political involvement. More surveillance wouldn't help. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY
- iamthirsty 9y ago
  > A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Or: Russian/Chinese Communism.
khedoros1 9y ago
> At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. At some point we will have to embrace full loss of all rights. Today, only the rich and powerful can literally get away with murder...OK, that's stupid and over-dramatic, but only a little more absurd than what you said. Living in a panopticon would just make society into more of a jail than it already is. That's not something we should embrace, even if it's difficult to fight against.

by tfha 9y ago

mulmen 9y ago

I disagree with this solution. Privacy has utility and when you give it up you do lose something. Even if we give it up to each other we are still in a worse place.

tfha 9y ago
You may disagree with the solution, but I don't see how privacy can be preserved given the technology we are building. Cameras getting smaller, and better. Microphones getting smaller, and better. Drones getting smaller and better. And all cheaper as well. Storage and search is also getting better and cheaper. The tide may be far away, but it's rushing in and you can't stop it. We must embrace the water.
- mulmen 9y ago
  Giving up a right is not an effective way of preventing it from being stolen. Technology is continually improving but we still have a say in how it is used. I have no respect for this or any other defeatist strategy.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > We must embrace the water. No. Just because it seems inevitable does not mean I must embrace it. I refuse to embrace it. While the things that are used to perform secret surveillance improve, the things that are used to uncover secret surveillance also improve. I am not going to willingly give up my privacy.

pdkl95 9y ago

> we can give that power to everyone Just like how "voting" gave everyone useful legislative influence? A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Tom Scott's "Oversight"[1] is warning, not a recommendation. > the same strategies can be turned on the prosecutor. Having evidence about a prosecutor's misdeeds doesn't mean you have the power to enforce anything. We already have police walking away from from video evidence of murder without charges. That will change with a lot more active political involvement. More surveillance wouldn't help. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY

iamthirsty 9y ago
> A society where everyone reports on each other is the canonical model for dystopia. Or: Russian/Chinese Communism.

khedoros1 9y ago

> At some point we will have to embrace full loss of privacy. At some point we will have to embrace full loss of all rights. Today, only the rich and powerful can literally get away with murder...OK, that's stupid and over-dramatic, but only a little more absurd than what you said. Living in a panopticon would just make society into more of a jail than it already is. That's not something we should embrace, even if it's difficult to fight against.