8 ms·

This is truly interesting, but from a privacy perspective if mass adoption actually occurred, extremely worrying. Not “inverse surveillance” as stated, but jus

This is truly interesting, but from a privacy perspective if mass adoption actually occurred, extremely worrying. Not “inverse surveillance” as stated, but just surveillance in the hands of people. At mass deployment, mass surveillance accessible by anyone. Since when does that protect anyone’s privacy?

david_at 8y ago
The true problem with surveillance is the asymmetry of it all. Grassland uses Game Theory to remove that asymmetry. "...no party could maintain a parasitical, data gathering asymmetry (one-sided surveillance) so long as there are other parties acting in their own self interest. A 'scorched earth policy'". It answers the question, who's watching the watchers? Everyone. And the network itself is paying them to do it. > ...extremely worrying. It seems to me this forces people into Nash Equilibrium. Say I now know everything about you and vice-versa and anything we do to each other would be broadcast around the world for all to see and irrevocably encrypted in a worldwide database. And since "...all nodes are anonymous, if it's computationally improbable to be sure of the identity and intentions of all parties who may end up with the data, then all parties are compelled to expand node territory for their own self interest and eschew behaviour leading to M.A.D. outcomes" > Since when does that protect anyone’s privacy? It doesn't. And it doesn't care. I don't mean to sound rude but you'll have to throw away this veneration of privacy to grasp what this is really about; like esteeming the Divine Right of Kings, that's not going to work any more. People are fighting over the right to keep riding this precious dead horse while corporations and governments are riding over them in AI Ferraris because they know that the ones who'll will win are those who privately control the most data to train machines to do, well... everything that a human can do and more. They don't care about your privacy. It's long gone and turned into glue. People want to believe in it but it's dead. And the longer people think it's still out there somewhere waiting for them, the longer it'll take them to grasp the power that data affords any party that disregards that belief. Then one day they'll wake up and realize all their land is in the hands of the Conquistadors.
- atoav 8y ago
  But isn’t balance here mostly about a balance of power? And isn’t a balance of power in terms of surveillance more than just a balance of information? In a transparent society the most powerful will still find their ways to be less transparent than everyone else, while leveraging this difference in transparency to the maximum extent possible. Information alone is not power. It is also about the ability to act on it, to use or abuse it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- whatshisface 8y ago
  What if Zuckerberg lives in a different neighborhood than you? In fact, most of the people your device would surveil if you did live near Zuckerberg would be his household staff.
  - david_at 8y ago
    Everyone has rivals. Everyone has people who are interested in selling to them. Everyone has people who are interested in finding out what they do, where they go etc etc. And no one more so than the rich and powerful. Regardless, I think you're misunderstanding the algorithm. Nodes broadcast their data to other nodes because it stands as unassailable proof an AI performed a difficult computation on human behaviour and earned those coins. So you don't have to have a node in a part of the world you want information about. As long as there's someone there who either likes cryptographic money or wants to know more about the activities of that person beyond where the node tracks them, you're going to get that information one way or another.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      People in expensive neighborhoods tend to be less interested in getting $10 than people in less expensive neighborhoods because they already have money, so this thing will predominately target the not-zuckerbergs of the world. If you wanted even coverage, you'd have to compensate for the fact that rich people tend to live near other rich people who are less motivated by the same money than poor people who live near other poor people.
matz1 8y ago
Good, it's democratizing surveillance. Anyway, society need to evolve from privacy focused to almost everything transparent. Information want to be free, it's not practical to fight it.
- programmarchy 8y ago
  Sure, then let’s start with the most important stuff and open the books for all private corporations and records for all public institutions.
- david_at 8y ago
  People are getting so hung up on surveillance. You have to think like a data scientist. And all the things seemingly useless data can tell you. And Grassland nodes are just software that can read a feed streamed from any digital camera in the world P2P. So in order to stop it, you'd have to somehow ban the ownership or use of all cell phones by everyone, everywhere.
uniqacount0815 8y ago
Very impressive work. Reconquisita of the public plaza by leveling the data playing field. We also are approaching a society, where very high powered artefacts are available to the common citizen. Who prevents a twelve year old brat in a star trek society from throwing a rock into a planet at c? The physics of space, make those living in a gravity well the inhabitants of a glas house by nature. The ugly answer is, society, by constant self-observation. The other ugly side, not discussed by this though, is not only the danger of authoritarian control, but the danger of risk averse society as observer. We already have this in some limited form. Parents who no longer allow kids to experiment with chemistry sets, etc. The stagnation they produce is very similar to a politician, who conquers the head of state, and then once in power- just sits on it. All the ressources in the world, and nothing willing to spend them on. To balance this, will be quite a task. Also - how do you keep a person under surveilance, once they are no longer directly connected to the society? Should any wannabe dictator be allowed with a pack of assemblers out into the ort cloud? May we only be allowed to dwell only in numbers larger then three? Future philosufferers this is yours.

david_at 8y ago

The true problem with surveillance is the asymmetry of it all. Grassland uses Game Theory to remove that asymmetry. "...no party could maintain a parasitical, data gathering asymmetry (one-sided surveillance) so long as there are other parties acting in their own self interest. A 'scorched earth policy'". It answers the question, who's watching the watchers? Everyone. And the network itself is paying them to do it. > ...extremely worrying. It seems to me this forces people into Nash Equilibrium. Say I now know everything about you and vice-versa and anything we do to each other would be broadcast around the world for all to see and irrevocably encrypted in a worldwide database. And since "...all nodes are anonymous, if it's computationally improbable to be sure of the identity and intentions of all parties who may end up with the data, then all parties are compelled to expand node territory for their own self interest and eschew behaviour leading to M.A.D. outcomes" > Since when does that protect anyone’s privacy? It doesn't. And it doesn't care. I don't mean to sound rude but you'll have to throw away this veneration of privacy to grasp what this is really about; like esteeming the Divine Right of Kings, that's not going to work any more. People are fighting over the right to keep riding this precious dead horse while corporations and governments are riding over them in AI Ferraris because they know that the ones who'll will win are those who privately control the most data to train machines to do, well... everything that a human can do and more. They don't care about your privacy. It's long gone and turned into glue. People want to believe in it but it's dead. And the longer people think it's still out there somewhere waiting for them, the longer it'll take them to grasp the power that data affords any party that disregards that belief. Then one day they'll wake up and realize all their land is in the hands of the Conquistadors.

atoav 8y ago
But isn’t balance here mostly about a balance of power? And isn’t a balance of power in terms of surveillance more than just a balance of information? In a transparent society the most powerful will still find their ways to be less transparent than everyone else, while leveraging this difference in transparency to the maximum extent possible. Information alone is not power. It is also about the ability to act on it, to use or abuse it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
whatshisface 8y ago
What if Zuckerberg lives in a different neighborhood than you? In fact, most of the people your device would surveil if you did live near Zuckerberg would be his household staff.
- david_at 8y ago
  Everyone has rivals. Everyone has people who are interested in selling to them. Everyone has people who are interested in finding out what they do, where they go etc etc. And no one more so than the rich and powerful. Regardless, I think you're misunderstanding the algorithm. Nodes broadcast their data to other nodes because it stands as unassailable proof an AI performed a difficult computation on human behaviour and earned those coins. So you don't have to have a node in a part of the world you want information about. As long as there's someone there who either likes cryptographic money or wants to know more about the activities of that person beyond where the node tracks them, you're going to get that information one way or another.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    People in expensive neighborhoods tend to be less interested in getting $10 than people in less expensive neighborhoods because they already have money, so this thing will predominately target the not-zuckerbergs of the world. If you wanted even coverage, you'd have to compensate for the fact that rich people tend to live near other rich people who are less motivated by the same money than poor people who live near other poor people.

matz1 8y ago

Good, it's democratizing surveillance. Anyway, society need to evolve from privacy focused to almost everything transparent. Information want to be free, it's not practical to fight it.

programmarchy 8y ago
Sure, then let’s start with the most important stuff and open the books for all private corporations and records for all public institutions.
david_at 8y ago
People are getting so hung up on surveillance. You have to think like a data scientist. And all the things seemingly useless data can tell you. And Grassland nodes are just software that can read a feed streamed from any digital camera in the world P2P. So in order to stop it, you'd have to somehow ban the ownership or use of all cell phones by everyone, everywhere.

uniqacount0815 8y ago

Very impressive work. Reconquisita of the public plaza by leveling the data playing field. We also are approaching a society, where very high powered artefacts are available to the common citizen. Who prevents a twelve year old brat in a star trek society from throwing a rock into a planet at c? The physics of space, make those living in a gravity well the inhabitants of a glas house by nature. The ugly answer is, society, by constant self-observation. The other ugly side, not discussed by this though, is not only the danger of authoritarian control, but the danger of risk averse society as observer. We already have this in some limited form. Parents who no longer allow kids to experiment with chemistry sets, etc. The stagnation they produce is very similar to a politician, who conquers the head of state, and then once in power- just sits on it. All the ressources in the world, and nothing willing to spend them on. To balance this, will be quite a task. Also - how do you keep a person under surveilance, once they are no longer directly connected to the society? Should any wannabe dictator be allowed with a pack of assemblers out into the ort cloud? May we only be allowed to dwell only in numbers larger then three? Future philosufferers this is yours.