3 ms·

> If you are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. Make t

> If you are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. Make the data public. All of it. Don't allow them any secrets. Knowledge is power, power to the people.

bilbo0s 7y ago
That would also spawn outrage mobs. "This boy said right here in his Call of Duty chat that he was going to go to school with his dad's rifle and shoot people!!!" The only thing you would do is put entirely unprofessional future mobs in place of the slightly unprofessional police we use currently. I would hope people could see the very real chance that your idea would make things worse.
- excalibur 7y ago
  > The only thing you would do is put entirely unprofessional future mobs in place of the slightly unprofessional police we use currently. I would hope people could see the very real chance that your idea would make things worse. Worse than the status quo, yes. But you seem to be under the assumption that we will be able to maintain a police force at "slightly unprofessional" moving forward, when governments have the tools and incentive to become far more controlling.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Governments can be ultra-controlling with slightly unprofessional police. It happens all the time across the globe. But without exception, wherever those police have been removed, poor though those police may have been, it has resulted in untold misery on the populace. Giving everyone the power to know exactly what everyone else is saying and doing is tantamount to taking data and removing all its police, and removing all its locks. It will not end well.
    - excalibur 7y ago
      I'm not sure how much stock I put in this analogy, but you could be right. It could also create an incentive to avoid collecting data in the first place, which would obviously be a good thing. But perhaps this could be better achieved through other methods.
kazagistar 7y ago
Power is power, and secrecy is a multiplier. So make the data of the powerful public. If you are a government, or chose to have a sufficiently high net worth institutionally or individually, then sure, make it all public. We gain most of the same benefits, while not incurring most of the harms. Its the 1% loss in privacy for 99% of the benefit.
EvanAnderson 7y ago
It's heartening to know that I'm not the only person who has had this thought. Eliminate the power gradient and level the playing field.

bilbo0s 7y ago

That would also spawn outrage mobs. "This boy said right here in his Call of Duty chat that he was going to go to school with his dad's rifle and shoot people!!!" The only thing you would do is put entirely unprofessional future mobs in place of the slightly unprofessional police we use currently. I would hope people could see the very real chance that your idea would make things worse.

excalibur 7y ago
> The only thing you would do is put entirely unprofessional future mobs in place of the slightly unprofessional police we use currently. I would hope people could see the very real chance that your idea would make things worse. Worse than the status quo, yes. But you seem to be under the assumption that we will be able to maintain a police force at "slightly unprofessional" moving forward, when governments have the tools and incentive to become far more controlling.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Governments can be ultra-controlling with slightly unprofessional police. It happens all the time across the globe. But without exception, wherever those police have been removed, poor though those police may have been, it has resulted in untold misery on the populace. Giving everyone the power to know exactly what everyone else is saying and doing is tantamount to taking data and removing all its police, and removing all its locks. It will not end well.
  - excalibur 7y ago
    I'm not sure how much stock I put in this analogy, but you could be right. It could also create an incentive to avoid collecting data in the first place, which would obviously be a good thing. But perhaps this could be better achieved through other methods.

kazagistar 7y ago

Power is power, and secrecy is a multiplier. So make the data of the powerful public. If you are a government, or chose to have a sufficiently high net worth institutionally or individually, then sure, make it all public. We gain most of the same benefits, while not incurring most of the harms. Its the 1% loss in privacy for 99% of the benefit.

EvanAnderson 7y ago

It's heartening to know that I'm not the only person who has had this thought. Eliminate the power gradient and level the playing field.