4 ms·

I think the changes have happened slowly enough not to be perceived. Yes, it's not as dramatic as sci-fi, but if you presented today to someone living in the 80

I think the changes have happened slowly enough not to be perceived. Yes, it's not as dramatic as sci-fi, but if you presented today to someone living in the 80s I think they'd recognize enough Orwellian crap going on to fear where their future is headed. On paper the UK is living in some of the most authoritarian times in modern history. Post 9/11 is a completely different world across much of western society, we have less freedom in many respects. It's almost a trope to say we've given up freedom for the illusion of security. Quality of life isn't entirely represented by how many cars you can afford. I feel like we live in constant fear of terrorism, war, and so on. And yet we never actually get close to these perma-wars, they exist entirely in the press and on TV. I mean, how much Orwellian prophecy do you need before you recognize you are worse off than before?

shadowgovt 7y ago
Here's the thing though: is the situation actually worse than things were for people in the '80s, or do we only believe it must be worse because Orwell wrote some fiction about what life would be like in an era of constant public surveillance, and it turns out the reality on-the-ground is quite different? Orwell assumed a system with a lot of power that was also unaccountable and heavily abused by those in control of it. UK government is neither of those things; they have elections more often than the US does. I'm personally of the opinion that people take 1984 as prophetic gospel when there are multiple scenarios that include mass ubiquitous surveillance that could come to pass. David Brin looks through several alternatives in "The Transparent Society" that seem to reflect more closely the nature of the modern world. Assuming the worst-case scenario is as much an anti-pattern for planning as assuming the best-case scenario.
- monkeynotes 7y ago
  I can't help but relate the 'First they came ...' prose to the above. I don't really have much to say as I feel the erosion of freedom is clearly apparent and 'worse' than before by all definitions. From "The Transparent Society" Wiki page (I have not read the book) > Brin argues that a core level of privacy—protecting our most intimate interactions—may be preserved, The UK govt. has already invaded intimate interactions, to the point that they got hauled into a Human Rights court https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime... I mean, how much more are you going to accept before they finally come for you?
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    > I mean, how much more are you going to accept before they finally come for you? Your example is the UK government being roped in by HUDOC, so I believe my answer is "Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC." In particular, the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence (intercepted communications), not collection of images of people in public and comparison of those images against persons of interest (a thing already legal to do by hand via human operators, which the computer algorithm merely speeds up). Private correspondence is private; why should people believe that their public movements should be so?
    - monkeynotes 7y ago
      > Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC This is basically the 'finally they came for me' argument I was making. You will sleep in until it's too late is what you are suggesting. > the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence This was my point contradicting "The Transparent Society"'s optimistic POV. I give up.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        I don't take Transparent Society's read as optimistic; it highlights dangers but treats those dangers as mitigable if we pay attention. For example, HUDOC acts as oversight for the risk of overreach of the UK's police apparatus. Given that such oversight exists, the addition of facial recognition to do what the UK camera network is designed to do already (but faster and with programmable parameters) is probably acceptable. The benefits are clear and the risk mitigated by oversight.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Here's the thing though: is the situation actually worse than things were for people in the '80s, or do we only believe it must be worse because Orwell wrote some fiction about what life would be like in an era of constant public surveillance, and it turns out the reality on-the-ground is quite different? Orwell assumed a system with a lot of power that was also unaccountable and heavily abused by those in control of it. UK government is neither of those things; they have elections more often than the US does. I'm personally of the opinion that people take 1984 as prophetic gospel when there are multiple scenarios that include mass ubiquitous surveillance that could come to pass. David Brin looks through several alternatives in "The Transparent Society" that seem to reflect more closely the nature of the modern world. Assuming the worst-case scenario is as much an anti-pattern for planning as assuming the best-case scenario.

monkeynotes 7y ago
I can't help but relate the 'First they came ...' prose to the above. I don't really have much to say as I feel the erosion of freedom is clearly apparent and 'worse' than before by all definitions. From "The Transparent Society" Wiki page (I have not read the book) > Brin argues that a core level of privacy—protecting our most intimate interactions—may be preserved, The UK govt. has already invaded intimate interactions, to the point that they got hauled into a Human Rights court https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/uk-surveillance-regime... I mean, how much more are you going to accept before they finally come for you?
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  > I mean, how much more are you going to accept before they finally come for you? Your example is the UK government being roped in by HUDOC, so I believe my answer is "Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC." In particular, the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence (intercepted communications), not collection of images of people in public and comparison of those images against persons of interest (a thing already legal to do by hand via human operators, which the computer algorithm merely speeds up). Private correspondence is private; why should people believe that their public movements should be so?
  - monkeynotes 7y ago
    > Wake me when the UK isn't answerable to HUDOC This is basically the 'finally they came for me' argument I was making. You will sleep in until it's too late is what you are suggesting. > the example you've cited is unauthorized and unjustified collection of private correspondence This was my point contradicting "The Transparent Society"'s optimistic POV. I give up.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      I don't take Transparent Society's read as optimistic; it highlights dangers but treats those dangers as mitigable if we pay attention. For example, HUDOC acts as oversight for the risk of overreach of the UK's police apparatus. Given that such oversight exists, the addition of facial recognition to do what the UK camera network is designed to do already (but faster and with programmable parameters) is probably acceptable. The benefits are clear and the risk mitigated by oversight.