3 ms·
Yet another article framing dystopian levels of surveillance as only bad if they malfunction. As if the only reason we wouldn't want to give complete control ov
by deogeo 7y ago
Yet another article framing dystopian levels of surveillance as only bad if they malfunction. As if the only reason we wouldn't want to give complete control over our lives to authority, is because the authority might make mistakes.
- magicalist 7y ago> Yet another article framing dystopian levels of surveillance as only bad if they malfunction Seriously, it's amazing how well framing a conversation works to divert it. Where are all the comments about the stasi, securing databases, corrupt law enforcement, and not collecting information in the first place? Instead we're arguing over what percentage of "innocent" people can be hassled by the total surveillance state for it to be acceptable.
- ltbarcly3 7y agoIt's only dystopian if we end up in an actual dystopia. Right now this is inconveniencing people. There is a totally valid question of whether we want surveillance at this level, and whether it is giving too much power to the government, which may not always use it for valid or good reasons. I don't support at all the use of mass surveillance because it's too easy to abuse, but in a world where we carry a location beacon with us everywhere we go, I don't know if we lose much if there are cameras in public places?