5 ms·

It does suggest, however, that a slippery-slope argument of "More surveillance plunges us immediately into a 1984-esque dystopia" has a big [citation needed] ba

It does suggest, however, that a slippery-slope argument of "More surveillance plunges us immediately into a 1984-esque dystopia" has a big [citation needed] banner hovering over it though.

syshum 8y ago
I feel we are already in a 1984 Style Surveillance state they are just better at hiding it then the book's government So no I do not think it is "slippery slope" at all, we have already slide down the slope; arriving at the bottom. We long ago surpassed the level of government surveillance I believe is ethical, constitutional, or proper for government if the government having a database filled with everyone Bio metric data they can then use technology to follow, trace, and monitory your every movement is not a "surveillance state" I shutter to think what it would take for you to classify such as system? a Brian implant that reads your every thought?
- fixermark 8y ago
  I know the opinion will vary from person to person, but if this is a 1984 dystopia, then Orwell over-hyped the downsides to a 1984 dystopia. (... I don't actually think it's a 1984 dystopia, mind ;) ).
  - syshum 8y ago
    It is sad that people have the delusion they are really free, unable to see they are actually in a guided cage. I am sure there were many in Oceania perfectly content with their life, thinking they were free because they never butted up against the edges of their cage, they never tested the limits of their "freedom", they were "respectable" citizens doing as the government said
    - gknoy 8y ago
      > I am sure there were many in Oceania perfectly content with their life, thinking they were free because they never butted up against the edges of their cage I do not recall getting that impression when I read 1984. Rather, the majority of the proles were absolutely under the figurative boot, and kept there via fear. Even the Inner Party were aware of the edges of their cage -- either they tested them and got reconditioned, or they were all-in on the dystopia, but I don't think that counts as thinking that they were free. Rather, they traded freedom for power over others.
    - schrodinger 8y ago
      What edges of your cage do you bump up against?
  - scarecrowbob 8y ago
    The boring observation that I can make is that the folks living in that dystopia were very good at thinking that it was a dystopia. I know that's a circular epistemic wormhole to get into, but simply liking the authoritarian surveillance you live in doesn't remove the features that make it authoritarian and intimately surveilling you.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      Right, but doesn't it remove the notion that the authoritarian, intimate-surveillance features are necessarily bad things? To stay in dystopian sci-fi: The computers on the Enterprise (TNG at least) were aware of crewmember's positions and health situation at all times as long as they were aboard ship. Do we imagine they felt spied upon? It seems instead being born into a world where surveillance is ubiquitous and benign-to-benevolent, they were fine with it. Maybe we can build that world instead of assuming the end-result is 1984 every time.
      - syshum 8y ago
        >>Maybe we can build that world instead of assuming the end-result is 1984 every time. The Key difference between the 2 is Resource Limitation. In 1984 Society had limited resources, in Star Trek it was a Post Scarcity Civilization. Star Trek is not possible while we have limited resources, invent replicator tech then you might have the ability to create a Star Trek society, no replicators no Star Trek
      - jodrellblank 8y ago
        The Enterprise was a flagship Starship, the people aboard were the best of the Starfleet Academy, aboard for a limited duration pseudo-military expedition. This is akin to saying "humans on board the IIS are monitored intensely, do they feel spied upon? Therefore we should all be willing and able to live for a lifetime with that level of monitoring". And not taking into account that IIS visits are undertaken by very unusual, pre-selected people, for limited durations, being monitored by a single organization, mostly for the purposes of research and protecting their investment. Which is completely not anything like reality for most people, where things are operated by goodness knows who, for goodness knows what reasons, and barely or not at all regulated against potential abuse.
- all_blue_chucks 8y ago
  In 1984 they had audio/video monitoring inside every home. Today governments only have such monitoring in select public areas. That's a significant distinction.
  - syshum 8y ago
    hmm Cell phones in everyone pocket, Echo / Home Devices, etc etc etc Keep believing the government has no access to this data..
    - all_blue_chucks 8y ago
      The government has no access to that data without due process mediated by a judge. That is not the same as continuous surveillance.
      - wooter 8y ago
        Snowden proved this was false.
        all_blue_chucks 8y ago
        They still need warrants to get information on specific people.
        wooter 8y ago
        no they didn't. it was self-reported abuses and no consequences.
      - syshum 8y ago
        Yea, sure, you betcha.... That assumes 2 things 1. that the Warrant process today is more than a superficial formality to give people the illusion of check on government power. When in reality to get a warrant they simply have to fill out a form, there is hardly ever any push back and it has been proven countless times that law enforcement lies via omission, or stretched the truth, or any number of dishonest unethical things to get warrants, on top of the fact the most judges simply approve 99.9% of all warrant applications. "Getting a warrant" should not be viewed as some panacea of government restraint 2. Assume that "if they got a warrant" then people like me would approve of government having access to that data. That "Getting a warrant" is a valid justification for obtaining data.
zaroth 8y ago
I guess you haven’t been watching what they’ve been doing to Trump for the last couple of years?

It does suggest, however, that a slippery-slope argument of "More surveillance plunges us immediately into a 1984-esque dystopia" has a big [citation needed] banner hovering over it though.

syshum 8y ago

I feel we are already in a 1984 Style Surveillance state they are just better at hiding it then the book's government So no I do not think it is "slippery slope" at all, we have already slide down the slope; arriving at the bottom. We long ago surpassed the level of government surveillance I believe is ethical, constitutional, or proper for government if the government having a database filled with everyone Bio metric data they can then use technology to follow, trace, and monitory your every movement is not a "surveillance state" I shutter to think what it would take for you to classify such as system? a Brian implant that reads your every thought?

fixermark 8y ago
I know the opinion will vary from person to person, but if this is a 1984 dystopia, then Orwell over-hyped the downsides to a 1984 dystopia. (... I don't actually think it's a 1984 dystopia, mind ;) ).
- syshum 8y ago
  It is sad that people have the delusion they are really free, unable to see they are actually in a guided cage. I am sure there were many in Oceania perfectly content with their life, thinking they were free because they never butted up against the edges of their cage, they never tested the limits of their "freedom", they were "respectable" citizens doing as the government said
  - gknoy 8y ago
    > I am sure there were many in Oceania perfectly content with their life, thinking they were free because they never butted up against the edges of their cage I do not recall getting that impression when I read 1984. Rather, the majority of the proles were absolutely under the figurative boot, and kept there via fear. Even the Inner Party were aware of the edges of their cage -- either they tested them and got reconditioned, or they were all-in on the dystopia, but I don't think that counts as thinking that they were free. Rather, they traded freedom for power over others.
  - schrodinger 8y ago
    What edges of your cage do you bump up against?
- scarecrowbob 8y ago
  The boring observation that I can make is that the folks living in that dystopia were very good at thinking that it was a dystopia. I know that's a circular epistemic wormhole to get into, but simply liking the authoritarian surveillance you live in doesn't remove the features that make it authoritarian and intimately surveilling you.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    Right, but doesn't it remove the notion that the authoritarian, intimate-surveillance features are necessarily bad things? To stay in dystopian sci-fi: The computers on the Enterprise (TNG at least) were aware of crewmember's positions and health situation at all times as long as they were aboard ship. Do we imagine they felt spied upon? It seems instead being born into a world where surveillance is ubiquitous and benign-to-benevolent, they were fine with it. Maybe we can build that world instead of assuming the end-result is 1984 every time.
    - syshum 8y ago
      >>Maybe we can build that world instead of assuming the end-result is 1984 every time. The Key difference between the 2 is Resource Limitation. In 1984 Society had limited resources, in Star Trek it was a Post Scarcity Civilization. Star Trek is not possible while we have limited resources, invent replicator tech then you might have the ability to create a Star Trek society, no replicators no Star Trek
    - jodrellblank 8y ago
      The Enterprise was a flagship Starship, the people aboard were the best of the Starfleet Academy, aboard for a limited duration pseudo-military expedition. This is akin to saying "humans on board the IIS are monitored intensely, do they feel spied upon? Therefore we should all be willing and able to live for a lifetime with that level of monitoring". And not taking into account that IIS visits are undertaken by very unusual, pre-selected people, for limited durations, being monitored by a single organization, mostly for the purposes of research and protecting their investment. Which is completely not anything like reality for most people, where things are operated by goodness knows who, for goodness knows what reasons, and barely or not at all regulated against potential abuse.
all_blue_chucks 8y ago
In 1984 they had audio/video monitoring inside every home. Today governments only have such monitoring in select public areas. That's a significant distinction.
- syshum 8y ago
  hmm Cell phones in everyone pocket, Echo / Home Devices, etc etc etc Keep believing the government has no access to this data..
  - all_blue_chucks 8y ago
    The government has no access to that data without due process mediated by a judge. That is not the same as continuous surveillance.
    - wooter 8y ago
      Snowden proved this was false.
      - all_blue_chucks 8y ago
        They still need warrants to get information on specific people.
        wooter 8y ago
        no they didn't. it was self-reported abuses and no consequences.
    - syshum 8y ago
      Yea, sure, you betcha.... That assumes 2 things 1. that the Warrant process today is more than a superficial formality to give people the illusion of check on government power. When in reality to get a warrant they simply have to fill out a form, there is hardly ever any push back and it has been proven countless times that law enforcement lies via omission, or stretched the truth, or any number of dishonest unethical things to get warrants, on top of the fact the most judges simply approve 99.9% of all warrant applications. "Getting a warrant" should not be viewed as some panacea of government restraint 2. Assume that "if they got a warrant" then people like me would approve of government having access to that data. That "Getting a warrant" is a valid justification for obtaining data.

zaroth 8y ago

I guess you haven’t been watching what they’ve been doing to Trump for the last couple of years?