4 ms·

Here's a pet peeve of mine: The critique of increasing mass surveillance focuses too much on technological problems and abuses by individual humans. A fully-fu

Here's a pet peeve of mine: The critique of increasing mass surveillance focuses too much on technological problems and abuses by individual humans. A fully-functioning, automated surveillance society with minimal potential for abuse by individual police etc. would be much worse than the partially-working systems we have now. A surveillance society is the antithesis of a free, democratic society. The underlying assumption of mass surveillance is that the individuals in societies can not be trusted to work for the best of the society and must be left no option but to conform to the law. This is in stark contrast to the idea that citizens generally see their society as something they wish to preserve, and legislation and law enforcement exists to modify incentives in cases where altruism, self-interest and a sense of social responsibility are insufficient to keep order. In other words, to support a surveillance society is to give up on the foundations of a democratic society that works to support the goals of its citizens, in favour of a society that treats its citizens as subjects to be ruled over. This is, of course, a much harder political argument to make than "the tech doesn't work", but it's an argument that needs to be made because one day, the tech will work.

YinglingLight 8y ago
> in cases where altruism, self-interest and a sense of social responsibility are insufficient to keep order Do you believe these three traits never vary from one culture group to the next?
kodz4 8y ago
Good point about the underlying assumption and thanks for making it. I think the more people in a room that remember it, when decisions get taken, the better are the decisions that get made.
fredley 8y ago
I'm not a psychologist, but I'd imagine treating people as if they will do no good (unless surveilled and controlled so that they have no option but to behave in the manner which the surveillors/controllers wish them to) will foster a mindset that society is not something people would choose to build themselves without oversight. Because if they would, then why do we need all the cameras and security?
cerealbad 8y ago
can a democratic society vote itself into a dictatorship? what if some citizens want to subvert democracy and liberal social norms, but do so democratically? democracy is a discussion of ideas. it is your job to convince people that freedom is advantageous to global governance or that they can be combined. with freedom you will get fracture and economic decline, conflict and instability. with global governance you will get a monopoly on stable world trade and endless economic and civic prosperity, as the best ideas will be rapidly adopted by the most number of people, ensuring benefit for all generations of mankind yet unborn. what if it turns out that your perception of freedom is not maximal freedom unless people freely choose it? and if they abandon it (for what you might consider a type of mental slavery) to a dynamic but perpetual system of control-information with new benefits far outweigh any negative consequences, like the ability to understand all preceding human knowledge in one lifespan or avoid all disease and aging related problems. humanity once we reached the age of writing, became the game of convincing other people to think and act alike. i cant think of a more illiberal and limiting idea than what i am doing right now - forcing my words into your head - yet this is the structure upon which everything we see has been built. you will find yourself in an increasingly marginalized position, and eventually your views will be silenced, as they should. you may be civilized, but barely register as a barbarian for what is to come, which will take yet more centuries to unfold. (28m42s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQZ-2iMUR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQZ-2iMUR0
- sieabahlpark 8y ago
  A democracy in theory can do anything if the sole description is democratic choice. However in practice you have constitutions and inalienable rights which would prevent a dictatorship from being voted in. Unless of course you everyone involved is okay with breaking the law to gain control.
_cs2017_ 8y ago
> legislation and law enforcement exists to modify incentives in cases where altruism, self-interest and a sense of social responsibility are insufficient to keep order. Here's an argument I've read many times. Within a few decades technological advances might bring us to a point where a handful of people can cause truly extraordinary destruction. Modern law enforcement and intelligence is not designed to deal with damage capabilities on that scale. If we want the society to remain free of overwhelming surveillance, we must hope that another mechanism will emerge to counter that risk. What do you think such a "social preservation" mechanism might look like?

YinglingLight 8y ago

> in cases where altruism, self-interest and a sense of social responsibility are insufficient to keep order Do you believe these three traits never vary from one culture group to the next?

kodz4 8y ago

Good point about the underlying assumption and thanks for making it. I think the more people in a room that remember it, when decisions get taken, the better are the decisions that get made.

fredley 8y ago

I'm not a psychologist, but I'd imagine treating people as if they will do no good (unless surveilled and controlled so that they have no option but to behave in the manner which the surveillors/controllers wish them to) will foster a mindset that society is not something people would choose to build themselves without oversight. Because if they would, then why do we need all the cameras and security?

cerealbad 8y ago

can a democratic society vote itself into a dictatorship? what if some citizens want to subvert democracy and liberal social norms, but do so democratically? democracy is a discussion of ideas. it is your job to convince people that freedom is advantageous to global governance or that they can be combined. with freedom you will get fracture and economic decline, conflict and instability. with global governance you will get a monopoly on stable world trade and endless economic and civic prosperity, as the best ideas will be rapidly adopted by the most number of people, ensuring benefit for all generations of mankind yet unborn. what if it turns out that your perception of freedom is not maximal freedom unless people freely choose it? and if they abandon it (for what you might consider a type of mental slavery) to a dynamic but perpetual system of control-information with new benefits far outweigh any negative consequences, like the ability to understand all preceding human knowledge in one lifespan or avoid all disease and aging related problems. humanity once we reached the age of writing, became the game of convincing other people to think and act alike. i cant think of a more illiberal and limiting idea than what i am doing right now - forcing my words into your head - yet this is the structure upon which everything we see has been built. you will find yourself in an increasingly marginalized position, and eventually your views will be silenced, as they should. you may be civilized, but barely register as a barbarian for what is to come, which will take yet more centuries to unfold. (28m42s) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQZ-2iMUR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TQZ-2iMUR0

sieabahlpark 8y ago
A democracy in theory can do anything if the sole description is democratic choice. However in practice you have constitutions and inalienable rights which would prevent a dictatorship from being voted in. Unless of course you everyone involved is okay with breaking the law to gain control.

_cs2017_ 8y ago

> legislation and law enforcement exists to modify incentives in cases where altruism, self-interest and a sense of social responsibility are insufficient to keep order. Here's an argument I've read many times. Within a few decades technological advances might bring us to a point where a handful of people can cause truly extraordinary destruction. Modern law enforcement and intelligence is not designed to deal with damage capabilities on that scale. If we want the society to remain free of overwhelming surveillance, we must hope that another mechanism will emerge to counter that risk. What do you think such a "social preservation" mechanism might look like?