6 ms·
Devil's advocate: What is so bad about everyone being tracked and accountable for where they are at any point in time? It would seem a lot of mistaken identity,
by meddlepal 9y ago
Devil's advocate: What is so bad about everyone being tracked and accountable for where they are at any point in time? It would seem a lot of mistaken identity, fraud, and he-said she-said issues could be removed if we can locate people at any point in time.
- poorleno111 9y ago..............
- meddlepal 9y agoIt's just technology: Some will use it for good and some will use it for evil. Isn't that the mantra we've been repeating since forever within the hacker community?
- DashRattlesnake 9y ago> It's just technology: Some will use it for good and some will use it for evil. Isn't that the mantra we've been repeating since forever within the hacker community? This smells like a troll.
- meddlepal 9y agoWhy? Seriously, the same argument has been used to defend BitTorrent and various other tools that might be used to circumvent laws.
- DashRattlesnake 9y agoYes...if you strip out so much context for the similarity to become meaningless.
- Too 9y agoIt's not just technology. It's technology given exclusive right to a single party. The state can watch you but you can't watch the state.
- rhizome 9y agoFacial recognition will not make a dent in "mistaken identity, fraud, he-said she-said issues" without displacing something like "the entire military budget," which is not going to happen. Facial recognition also doesn't work.
- meddlepal 9y agoMaybe not facial recognition, but why not chip everyone with RFID and GPS and track people? Require biometric auth to use computers or enter buildings? Stop using cash and require all transactions to be electronic. I'm just asking the questions about what is so awful about massive transparent surveillance? We're never getting this back in Pandora's box so we might as well acknowledge it and make it a part of our existence.
- 13of40 9y agoAs long as we can stop dancing around the fact that most of us drive faster than the speed limit, smoke dope, and/or have unconventional sexual relationships at some point in our lives.
- meddlepal 9y agoFair points. What if everyone else's information was open and accessible so that nobody could hide anything from anybody thus removing potential asymmetric knowledge?
- pmiller2 9y agoLet's say I make frequent visits to mosques, and there's a government unfriendly to Muslims in power, as one of many hypothetical scenarios where this could be a real problem.
- meddlepal 9y agoSure but all your activities and everyone else's activity would be tracked. Assuming rule of law continues to be upheld and we don't devolve into something worse it should be pretty easy to show innocence if needed.
- pmiller2 9y agoAll it takes is one cop who doesn't give a shit to abuse the system.
- macintux 9y agoInnocence is remarkably difficult to prove. Let's say I visit a church regularly, and someone who later turns out to be a terrorist was often there at the same time. Not surprising, since houses of worship often have predictable schedules of events. How do I prove I wasn't collaborating with the terrorist?
- bonesss 9y agoLooking at data storage rates and 'digital permanence': we should be equally concerned that such a government may one day be in power and retroactively use that data against you.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- miketery 9y agoThe problem isn't with the ideal scenario, the issue is when systems fail or are used outside of the ideal scenario. Generally this will be in a muzzling and controlling capacity when it comes to surveillance. Interestingly merely paranoia of surveillance results in self muzzling and self imposed restrictions. In the end the results are not conducive for societies progress.
- zamber 9y ago> Interestingly merely paranoia of surveillance results in self muzzling and self imposed restrictions. My dad got me paranoid about surveillance. Once I grew up old enough to look more than 2 years ahead I started censoring myself because the internet never forgets and I don't want to give a dossier full of potentially incriminating data when/if we slide from democracy to dictatorship. The upside is that social media is ruined for me forever ;). In light of recent commentary, links to depression and addiction it looks like it turned out healthier for me. Nonetheless I'm fully aware of the level of self-censorship I tend to sustain.
- DashRattlesnake 9y agoIt would also be a great help in controlling dissenters and subversives. Once we have the infrastructure in place, it's there for anyone with enough power to use for any reason...
- solatic 9y agoFalse positives. No system is 100% accurate, but the closer that systems get to 100% reliability, the more people confuse those systems with 100% reliability. The Panopticon™ claims you robbed the bank. You know you were at work, in a meeting, and your coworkers vouch for your alibi. But the Panopticon™ is "always" right, so you get fast-tracked through the courts (saves taxpayer money not to have the case dragged out) and sentenced to ten years for a crime you didn't commit (your public defender was a huge help at sentencing). Because after all, if you couldn't trust the Panopticon™, then why the hell did they spend $600 billion of taxpayer money building it? American society was founded on the bedrock of a few principles: you're innocent until you're proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, crime is prosecuted and not prevented, your reputation can be reset by moving somewhere new and making a new beginning, and trust, faith, and forgiveness are more worthy aims than proof, evidence, and justice, for the latter can only really obtained with great difficulty and cost through the courts. Panopticons go against all these principles.
- chronic193 9y agoIf everything you described is a one in a million chance, then I don't see why it's a problem. Consider it a free for living in a civilized society.