5 ms·

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't think we have police by consent in America and I don't see how the idea applies to surveillance.

trothamel 7y ago
Why don't you think that we have police by consent in America? The police are generally accountable to elected people. What's more, they are generally fairly popular. When asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the police in the United States are doing their job?" 65% say yes, vs 26% no. https://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm https://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 7y ago
  Curiously, that page has a poll that seems relevant: "How concerned would you be about your own privacy if U.S. law enforcement starts using unmanned drones with high tech cameras and recording equipment? Would you be very concerned, somewhat concerned, only a little concerned, or not at all concerned?" Very concerned Somewhat concerned Only a little concerned Not at all concerned Unsure 7/25-30/13 49% 20% 15% 14% 2% (Not disagreeing with your point, mind you)
- harimau777 7y ago
  While I don't think that "police by consent" would require everyone to consent, if one in four people don't then I think that at least calls it into question. It would be interesting to see the numbers broken down by jurisdiction and demographic. This is just speculation, but I would guess that some jurisdictions and demographics are policed by consent but that many are not.
- harimau777 7y ago
  Also, nice find! It's helpful to have actual numbers to discuss.
- tristram_shandy 7y ago
  Policing in America is a mostly modern invention, and the first public full-time police force is less than 200 years old: before the police, towns would typically have a night watch made up of citizens who volunteered for certain nights and certain times, and industry would pay other citizens to protect property and commodities. These paotection jobs typically didn't pay well, and mainly employed a segment of the population who might otherwise be criminal. The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism, the first public police force was created in Boston only when merchants convinced the public that the expense should be born by all for the common good, and in the South the public police force evolved from slave patrols as a necessity of maintaining the slavery system. The public police force continued to spread throughout America, particularly in the West, in 19th century only as businessmen began to fear labour activism and required a militant police force to end strikes. The public police force before the 1930s was not only a new idea, but it was entirely a weapon of political power and terror: police forces were chosen by the leader of the ward's winning political party, and would ignore that political leader's own street gangs as they intimidated rival voters. It wasn't until 1929, after the Wickersham Commission, which noted such gems as "the inflicting of pain, physical or mental, to extract confessions or statements... is widespread throughout the country", that a push for professionalism and the independence of the police force began in America. The consent the average citizen has given to be policed and the satisfaction she should have with the current system is very debatable. Would the night watch have enforced the war on drugs to such a violent end? Do we really need to have squad cars looking for speeders, or can citizens just report dangerous drivers to the DMV? Was it not easier to pay off erstwhile thieves a wage to 'guard the property'? Perhaps our consent to the police is just a manufactured consent, as our economic system was only able to survive by creating a force capable of quelling our collective dissent?
  - cbnotfromthere 7y ago
    I understand you're a marxist, feel free to interpret facts any way you want, but please do not make claims which are factually untrue. Policing in America is a mostly modern invention Policing as we know it is EVERYWHERE a "mostly modern invention". USA has no difference in policing history than other Western countries (but I guess that undermines your Marxist interpretations). The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism Not at all. The rise of modern policing is related to the apparition of modern nation-states, which had no interest in quasi-feudal policing. That's why it started in France in the 18th century (not exactly capitalist paradise but certainly centralized nation-state). Then Britain mixed the French police system with the Common Law, focusing on preventative policing (see 1829 Metropolitan Police Act). The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism, the first public police force was created in Boston Literally not true, as the first public police force was created in 1626 in New York. The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism, [...] and in the South the public police force evolved from slave patrols as a necessity of maintaining the slavery system Literally not true, as slave patrols were ad-hoc and not really common. The public police force continued to spread throughout America, particularly in the West, in 19th century only as businessmen began to fear labour activism and required a militant police force to end strikes. Literally not true, as policing the West was mainly related to handling both the barely-pacified Native Americans and neverending waves of fresh settlers. public police force before the 1930s was not only a new idea, but it was entirely a weapon of political power and terror Entirely? Really? They didn't do any real policing at all, just being weapon of political power and terror? And you want to be taken seriously? The consent the average citizen has given to be policed and the satisfaction she should have with the current system is very debatable. Only by you and Noam Chomsky. Everyone else understands that USA is a democracy and voting, being free, expresses consent for the system.
carapace 7y ago
What I'm saying is that, if ubiquitous surveillance is inevitable (as I believe), then it behooves us to address the antagonistic relationship (to the degree that it exists) between our governments and ourselves. - - - - As for specific ways the idea applies to surveillance, I can only speculate. The essence would be that everyone is equally under the microscope including law enforcement officers and administration.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  One angle, which you may or may not have implied: We can't stop Google or the government to cover the city with cameras. But we can put up our own camera network!
  - carapace 7y ago
    You're still taking the stance of "us against them" in a context where "they" have much greater resources than "us". I think that's already a "failure mode" and we have to integrate society and government somehow (or fall into some techno-dystopia.)
    - cbnotfromthere 7y ago
      we have to integrate society and government somehow Out of curiosity, what do you see as "non-integrated" between society and government in Western democracies?
    - harimau777 7y ago
      Is there a way that you can see that we might achieve that? I ask because it seems to me that would require dramatic changes in government and society that are extraordinarily unlikely. I'm not even sure if such a system could be maintained without changes to basic human nature.
      - carapace 7y ago
        > Is there a way that you can see that we might achieve that? Actually, yes. I think something like the "Core Transformation Process" could do the trick: https://www.coretransformation.org/ https://www.coretransformation.org/ I can vouch from personal experience that it works and is pretty profound. I suspect that it could be adapted to work with pairs and groups. > I ask because it seems to me that would require dramatic changes in government and society that are extraordinarily unlikely. I'm not even sure if such a system could be maintained without changes to basic human nature. Ultimately, I think it all boils down to human nature. Technology is just an accelerator or amplifier. Then again, maybe this is the moment where our evolution transcends our baser human nature, eh? "Interesting times." Ciao.

trothamel 7y ago

Why don't you think that we have police by consent in America? The police are generally accountable to elected people. What's more, they are generally fairly popular. When asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the police in the United States are doing their job?" 65% say yes, vs 26% no. https://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm https://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 7y ago
Curiously, that page has a poll that seems relevant: "How concerned would you be about your own privacy if U.S. law enforcement starts using unmanned drones with high tech cameras and recording equipment? Would you be very concerned, somewhat concerned, only a little concerned, or not at all concerned?" Very concerned Somewhat concerned Only a little concerned Not at all concerned Unsure 7/25-30/13 49% 20% 15% 14% 2% (Not disagreeing with your point, mind you)
harimau777 7y ago
While I don't think that "police by consent" would require everyone to consent, if one in four people don't then I think that at least calls it into question. It would be interesting to see the numbers broken down by jurisdiction and demographic. This is just speculation, but I would guess that some jurisdictions and demographics are policed by consent but that many are not.
harimau777 7y ago
Also, nice find! It's helpful to have actual numbers to discuss.
tristram_shandy 7y ago
Policing in America is a mostly modern invention, and the first public full-time police force is less than 200 years old: before the police, towns would typically have a night watch made up of citizens who volunteered for certain nights and certain times, and industry would pay other citizens to protect property and commodities. These paotection jobs typically didn't pay well, and mainly employed a segment of the population who might otherwise be criminal. The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism, the first public police force was created in Boston only when merchants convinced the public that the expense should be born by all for the common good, and in the South the public police force evolved from slave patrols as a necessity of maintaining the slavery system. The public police force continued to spread throughout America, particularly in the West, in 19th century only as businessmen began to fear labour activism and required a militant police force to end strikes. The public police force before the 1930s was not only a new idea, but it was entirely a weapon of political power and terror: police forces were chosen by the leader of the ward's winning political party, and would ignore that political leader's own street gangs as they intimidated rival voters. It wasn't until 1929, after the Wickersham Commission, which noted such gems as "the inflicting of pain, physical or mental, to extract confessions or statements... is widespread throughout the country", that a push for professionalism and the independence of the police force began in America. The consent the average citizen has given to be policed and the satisfaction she should have with the current system is very debatable. Would the night watch have enforced the war on drugs to such a violent end? Do we really need to have squad cars looking for speeders, or can citizens just report dangerous drivers to the DMV? Was it not easier to pay off erstwhile thieves a wage to 'guard the property'? Perhaps our consent to the police is just a manufactured consent, as our economic system was only able to survive by creating a force capable of quelling our collective dissent?
- cbnotfromthere 7y ago
  I understand you're a marxist, feel free to interpret facts any way you want, but please do not make claims which are factually untrue. Policing in America is a mostly modern invention Policing as we know it is EVERYWHERE a "mostly modern invention". USA has no difference in policing history than other Western countries (but I guess that undermines your Marxist interpretations). The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism Not at all. The rise of modern policing is related to the apparition of modern nation-states, which had no interest in quasi-feudal policing. That's why it started in France in the 18th century (not exactly capitalist paradise but certainly centralized nation-state). Then Britain mixed the French police system with the Common Law, focusing on preventative policing (see 1829 Metropolitan Police Act). The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism, the first public police force was created in Boston Literally not true, as the first public police force was created in 1626 in New York. The rise of the police was a consequence of economics peculiar to 19th century capitalism, [...] and in the South the public police force evolved from slave patrols as a necessity of maintaining the slavery system Literally not true, as slave patrols were ad-hoc and not really common. The public police force continued to spread throughout America, particularly in the West, in 19th century only as businessmen began to fear labour activism and required a militant police force to end strikes. Literally not true, as policing the West was mainly related to handling both the barely-pacified Native Americans and neverending waves of fresh settlers. public police force before the 1930s was not only a new idea, but it was entirely a weapon of political power and terror Entirely? Really? They didn't do any real policing at all, just being weapon of political power and terror? And you want to be taken seriously? The consent the average citizen has given to be policed and the satisfaction she should have with the current system is very debatable. Only by you and Noam Chomsky. Everyone else understands that USA is a democracy and voting, being free, expresses consent for the system.

carapace 7y ago

What I'm saying is that, if ubiquitous surveillance is inevitable (as I believe), then it behooves us to address the antagonistic relationship (to the degree that it exists) between our governments and ourselves. - - - - As for specific ways the idea applies to surveillance, I can only speculate. The essence would be that everyone is equally under the microscope including law enforcement officers and administration.

BurningFrog 7y ago
One angle, which you may or may not have implied: We can't stop Google or the government to cover the city with cameras. But we can put up our own camera network!
- carapace 7y ago
  You're still taking the stance of "us against them" in a context where "they" have much greater resources than "us". I think that's already a "failure mode" and we have to integrate society and government somehow (or fall into some techno-dystopia.)
  - cbnotfromthere 7y ago
    we have to integrate society and government somehow Out of curiosity, what do you see as "non-integrated" between society and government in Western democracies?
  - harimau777 7y ago
    Is there a way that you can see that we might achieve that? I ask because it seems to me that would require dramatic changes in government and society that are extraordinarily unlikely. I'm not even sure if such a system could be maintained without changes to basic human nature.
    - carapace 7y ago
      > Is there a way that you can see that we might achieve that? Actually, yes. I think something like the "Core Transformation Process" could do the trick: https://www.coretransformation.org/ https://www.coretransformation.org/ I can vouch from personal experience that it works and is pretty profound. I suspect that it could be adapted to work with pairs and groups. > I ask because it seems to me that would require dramatic changes in government and society that are extraordinarily unlikely. I'm not even sure if such a system could be maintained without changes to basic human nature. Ultimately, I think it all boils down to human nature. Technology is just an accelerator or amplifier. Then again, maybe this is the moment where our evolution transcends our baser human nature, eh? "Interesting times." Ciao.