4 ms·

I would prefer to be in a reality where privacy doesn't exist and surveillance was extremely open. It would be safer to me. The world is beyond manipulative by

I would prefer to be in a reality where privacy doesn't exist and surveillance was extremely open. It would be safer to me. The world is beyond manipulative by what we perceive as having privacy today. Majority of people in the world believe in free-will without any rational reason. Total ego controlling who gets resources for a healthy life vs less fortunate and where judgement is passed by nonsense with who is rewarded or punished. The only way to make the world fair at this point is to have privacy destroyed and with the system of surveillance open as possible. Unfairness becomes labeled to individuals by the openness of surveillance.

philprx 8y ago
Sounds like some kind of privacy communism. Want to bet how it goes?
- intralizee 8y ago
  I'll bet better than now and only if the system is fully open (viewable by the public). Communism becomes a broken model when privacy exists and where people can abuse their position in the system because of said privacy.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    Redistributing information will have the same effect as redistributing property. It will discourage private enterprise, because it will reduce the incentive to generate valuable information, and will breed underground criminal organizations as a means of circumventing the state apparatus. The Soviet Union was one of the most corrupt societies on Earth by its end, largely as a consequence of making the formal economy so restricted that they pay off of operating outside of it grew enormously. Today's Russian organized crime is just the continuation of the organizations and networks that ran its grey/black markets during the Soviet era.
    - intralizee 8y ago
      Well I'm not certain if one can assume "killing privacy with am open surveillance system" would reduce the incentive to generate valuable information or breed underground criminal organizations from past history. History isn't always a reflection of what will happen today. The "current moment" is different than the past. Today, societies are sill severely corrupt in functioning and when it comes to humanity, currency, desire. The question, "can an open surveillance system without privacy defeat the value of a person taking criminal action(s)" is the real bet. I think it would since technology is able to build such a system. The only difficulty or making it not a possibility is getting the majority to desire the change and which might be an impossibility. People can be unwilling based on self interests, the current world not being great and being conditioned by the not so great system of today in thinking it's the opposite of what we need.
      - CryptoPunk 8y ago
        We don't know anything for certain about hypothetical future scenarios of course. I think it's a significant risk, given what has happened in the past, and the general dynamics of an economy. Economically valuable work is done when individuals have an incentive to do it. The acquisition of proprietary knowledge is one such incentive to do valuable work. Without privacy, there are far fewer opportunities to generate proprietary knowledge. >>The question, "can an open surveillance system without privacy defeat the value of a person taking criminal action(s)" is the real bet. It's not the only real bet. Whether it can be imposed without destroying much of the incentive to generate value, and without incentivizing the creation of a black market with a parallel dispute resolution mechanism that works in secret and outside of the law (aka criminal organizations) is also a major bet, and one that I think will lose catastrophically. The former - the potential harm to the incentive to be productive - is the most dangerous risk of eliminating privacy. Economic development is a major source of risk alleviation. It reduces risks from disease, natural disasters, accidents, starvation, etc. So in trying to eliminate risks from crime by way of eliminating privacy, you may inadvertently increase much more serious risks, and you may in fact increase the criminal element itself by pushing people to operate through outlawed networks bound by oaths of secrecy.

philprx 8y ago

Sounds like some kind of privacy communism. Want to bet how it goes?

intralizee 8y ago
I'll bet better than now and only if the system is fully open (viewable by the public). Communism becomes a broken model when privacy exists and where people can abuse their position in the system because of said privacy.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  Redistributing information will have the same effect as redistributing property. It will discourage private enterprise, because it will reduce the incentive to generate valuable information, and will breed underground criminal organizations as a means of circumventing the state apparatus. The Soviet Union was one of the most corrupt societies on Earth by its end, largely as a consequence of making the formal economy so restricted that they pay off of operating outside of it grew enormously. Today's Russian organized crime is just the continuation of the organizations and networks that ran its grey/black markets during the Soviet era.
  - intralizee 8y ago
    Well I'm not certain if one can assume "killing privacy with am open surveillance system" would reduce the incentive to generate valuable information or breed underground criminal organizations from past history. History isn't always a reflection of what will happen today. The "current moment" is different than the past. Today, societies are sill severely corrupt in functioning and when it comes to humanity, currency, desire. The question, "can an open surveillance system without privacy defeat the value of a person taking criminal action(s)" is the real bet. I think it would since technology is able to build such a system. The only difficulty or making it not a possibility is getting the majority to desire the change and which might be an impossibility. People can be unwilling based on self interests, the current world not being great and being conditioned by the not so great system of today in thinking it's the opposite of what we need.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      We don't know anything for certain about hypothetical future scenarios of course. I think it's a significant risk, given what has happened in the past, and the general dynamics of an economy. Economically valuable work is done when individuals have an incentive to do it. The acquisition of proprietary knowledge is one such incentive to do valuable work. Without privacy, there are far fewer opportunities to generate proprietary knowledge. >>The question, "can an open surveillance system without privacy defeat the value of a person taking criminal action(s)" is the real bet. It's not the only real bet. Whether it can be imposed without destroying much of the incentive to generate value, and without incentivizing the creation of a black market with a parallel dispute resolution mechanism that works in secret and outside of the law (aka criminal organizations) is also a major bet, and one that I think will lose catastrophically. The former - the potential harm to the incentive to be productive - is the most dangerous risk of eliminating privacy. Economic development is a major source of risk alleviation. It reduces risks from disease, natural disasters, accidents, starvation, etc. So in trying to eliminate risks from crime by way of eliminating privacy, you may inadvertently increase much more serious risks, and you may in fact increase the criminal element itself by pushing people to operate through outlawed networks bound by oaths of secrecy.