3 ms·

I agree there are a lot of privacy concerns here, but isn't this what governments and mega-corporations are already doing? This way at least the data will be ac

by warent 8y ago

I agree there are a lot of privacy concerns here, but isn't this what governments and mega-corporations are already doing? This way at least the data will be accessible to more than just privileged groups. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that this could add a whole new depth to the market of privacy and security. If this "Grassland" became the norm, then privacy concerns would be less niche, the effectiveness of our privacy efforts would be more obvious as we would have immediate feedback, and it would, therefore, be easier to ensure we're maintaining privacy from governments/corps (or anyone else for that matter). So rather than reflexively lashing out at this as a "scary threat to privacy" maybe this is actually a counter-intuitive evolution to enhanced privacy and connectivity.

chris1993 8y ago
At least there are some limits to the use of the data when it is restricted to a few elites. When any loony or malcontent can use it then it just makes things much worse for those at the bottom of the heap.
- david_at 8y ago
  You're looking at something and calling it 'surveillance' because you don't yet have a word to describe the entire thing. It's too new so you see it through your 'old eyes'. You noticed there was a camera involved and you knew what that was so you ran with it. It's the proverbial blind man whose hand has happened to land on the tusk and he tells his companions, "It's a spear!". You're not seeing the whole elephant because you've never seen one. It benefits you when other people have knowledge about the world. It benefits you if other people have the knowledge to drive safely. It benefits you that your neighbours have a basic knowledge of germ theory and don't throw their sewage in the streets like medieval peasants. It benefits you that your fellow voters have at least a basic education and can make somewhat informed decisions. It benefits you that medical knowledge isn't locked away in some vault in Alexandria but it's in the mind of the doctor whose preventing an outbreak of some disease you happen to be susceptible to. Did you not read the things I was able to learn just from my first node? We can give so many people free access to information that would push back darkness, fear and superstition just a little further. And these people would do and build things that would make your life better. So instead of channelling the Archbishop of Canterbury telling Bible translator John Wycliffe that too much knowledge will corrupt the commoners, open your eyes.
  - thecupisblue 8y ago
    Exactly. The real world is comprised of data, and the more we restrict it to private interest, private interest gets to reap more benefits. Information is only leverage against you if it's not public.
    - david_at 8y ago
      Absolutely! It's funny that the words they use, "dystopian", "doomsdayish" etc. etc. ... are all from fiction. these are literally categories of genre-fiction. They're trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can they possibly expect me to take them seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? They've taken stories they know are fake and mapped them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving them mathematical arguments and they're giving me Dr. Seuss. That's messed up. Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". This is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world.
    - david_at 8y ago
      Yes, this is what I mean on the site in postulate '3. Data Symmetry' by a "scorched earth policy". Someone can't use it unilaterally as exclusive leverage if everyone else knows it too. From wikipedia: "A scorched-earth policy is a military strategy that aims to destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy while it is advancing through or withdrawing from a location". There's no unilateral benefit to hording valuable data about the natural world because Grassland's AI independently causes information inflation.
dgellow 8y ago
Governments and mega Corp have some level of responsibilities. If someone is judged illegal, irresponsible, they can be prosecuted somehow. You have some limit to their power and some restrictions to what data they are allowed to gather and use, even if it practice there is obviously some issues at this level. What the OP suggests is to use the power of the mob to apply surveillance to potentially anyone, completely removing the concept of privacy. That sounds incredibly dangerous and nefarious to me.

by warent 8y ago

chris1993 8y ago

At least there are some limits to the use of the data when it is restricted to a few elites. When any loony or malcontent can use it then it just makes things much worse for those at the bottom of the heap.

david_at 8y ago
You're looking at something and calling it 'surveillance' because you don't yet have a word to describe the entire thing. It's too new so you see it through your 'old eyes'. You noticed there was a camera involved and you knew what that was so you ran with it. It's the proverbial blind man whose hand has happened to land on the tusk and he tells his companions, "It's a spear!". You're not seeing the whole elephant because you've never seen one. It benefits you when other people have knowledge about the world. It benefits you if other people have the knowledge to drive safely. It benefits you that your neighbours have a basic knowledge of germ theory and don't throw their sewage in the streets like medieval peasants. It benefits you that your fellow voters have at least a basic education and can make somewhat informed decisions. It benefits you that medical knowledge isn't locked away in some vault in Alexandria but it's in the mind of the doctor whose preventing an outbreak of some disease you happen to be susceptible to. Did you not read the things I was able to learn just from my first node? We can give so many people free access to information that would push back darkness, fear and superstition just a little further. And these people would do and build things that would make your life better. So instead of channelling the Archbishop of Canterbury telling Bible translator John Wycliffe that too much knowledge will corrupt the commoners, open your eyes.
- thecupisblue 8y ago
  Exactly. The real world is comprised of data, and the more we restrict it to private interest, private interest gets to reap more benefits. Information is only leverage against you if it's not public.
  - david_at 8y ago
    Absolutely! It's funny that the words they use, "dystopian", "doomsdayish" etc. etc. ... are all from fiction. these are literally categories of genre-fiction. They're trying to make straight faced predictions about the future using what is literally in the book store under "Fiction". Something that is by definition not real, a fabrication, a lie. How can they possibly expect me to take them seriously or grasp what it is that I'm doing? They've taken stories they know are fake and mapped them to the real world. How is that any different from religion? I'm giving them mathematical arguments and they're giving me Dr. Seuss. That's messed up. Well, Hitchen's Razor says that, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's my razor, "What can be asserted with fiction can be dismissed with fiction". This is a bulwark against those who insist on living in a world of fantasy and superstition. But for the rest of us, those who want to live in reality, I'm giving you the real world.
  - david_at 8y ago
    Yes, this is what I mean on the site in postulate '3. Data Symmetry' by a "scorched earth policy". Someone can't use it unilaterally as exclusive leverage if everyone else knows it too. From wikipedia: "A scorched-earth policy is a military strategy that aims to destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy while it is advancing through or withdrawing from a location". There's no unilateral benefit to hording valuable data about the natural world because Grassland's AI independently causes information inflation.

dgellow 8y ago

Governments and mega Corp have some level of responsibilities. If someone is judged illegal, irresponsible, they can be prosecuted somehow. You have some limit to their power and some restrictions to what data they are allowed to gather and use, even if it practice there is obviously some issues at this level. What the OP suggests is to use the power of the mob to apply surveillance to potentially anyone, completely removing the concept of privacy. That sounds incredibly dangerous and nefarious to me.