3 ms·

Independent oversight? So .. like from a government? Cause that's the definition of independent, from the people for the people. And if the next answer is "that

by sgift 6y ago

Independent oversight? So .. like from a government? Cause that's the definition of independent, from the people for the people. And if the next answer is "that's not how government is in reality" neither is any other 'independent' oversight. Humans are easily corruptible. We better find a solution for this problem or all that will happen is an endless line of watchers watching other watchers.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Humans are the only solution. Rational humans are never going to rely on technology alone for enforcement, governance, and/or oversight. If you have a problem with the humans currently making decisions, find better humans. Checks and balances. Don't like the Big Tech corporate surveillance state? Write better laws regulating them. Don't like the people writing laws currently? Vote and run against them. Still not heard? There are yet more avenues for recourse. The idea that technology is going to fix these problems holds no basis in reality.
- sgift 6y ago
  Seems I misunderstood your previous post, cause everything you wrote I agree with completely. My only point here is: Currently, people do not trust independent oversight (read: government). And there are probably a few good reasons. So, I don't see how saying "Amazon should only sell this technology with independent oversight" fixes anything as long as the trust problem isn't solved.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Definitely talking past each other. You must solve for X, where X=trust.
lewiscollard 6y ago
> Independent oversight? So .. like from a government? Cause that's the definition of independent, from the people for the people. If you do truly hold the belief that governments are "the definition of independent", and that all governments act solely in the best interests of their own citizens...well, to borrow some words from Public Enemy: Can't do nuttin' for ya man. We're literally talking about the government using facial recognition with no oversight and little public debate and no consent from the public, so you wouldn't have an excuse for coming out with this "government is all of us working together" lorem ipsum even if you were born 30 seconds before the article was posted and didn't know anything about the way that governments actually behave in practice. You come so very close to getting it, in that you acknowledge that this isn't how governments work in reality, and then you're like "well neither is anything else though" as if that is somehow an argument for a strategy that you kinda-acknowledge cannot work. And FWIW: I agree, it's fucked, it needs to stop, both in the public and private sector, and anyone that works on such tech should be shunned. But your assumptions are false to fact.

by sgift 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Humans are the only solution. Rational humans are never going to rely on technology alone for enforcement, governance, and/or oversight. If you have a problem with the humans currently making decisions, find better humans. Checks and balances. Don't like the Big Tech corporate surveillance state? Write better laws regulating them. Don't like the people writing laws currently? Vote and run against them. Still not heard? There are yet more avenues for recourse. The idea that technology is going to fix these problems holds no basis in reality.

sgift 6y ago
Seems I misunderstood your previous post, cause everything you wrote I agree with completely. My only point here is: Currently, people do not trust independent oversight (read: government). And there are probably a few good reasons. So, I don't see how saying "Amazon should only sell this technology with independent oversight" fixes anything as long as the trust problem isn't solved.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Definitely talking past each other. You must solve for X, where X=trust.

lewiscollard 6y ago

> Independent oversight? So .. like from a government? Cause that's the definition of independent, from the people for the people. If you do truly hold the belief that governments are "the definition of independent", and that all governments act solely in the best interests of their own citizens...well, to borrow some words from Public Enemy: Can't do nuttin' for ya man. We're literally talking about the government using facial recognition with no oversight and little public debate and no consent from the public, so you wouldn't have an excuse for coming out with this "government is all of us working together" lorem ipsum even if you were born 30 seconds before the article was posted and didn't know anything about the way that governments actually behave in practice. You come so very close to getting it, in that you acknowledge that this isn't how governments work in reality, and then you're like "well neither is anything else though" as if that is somehow an argument for a strategy that you kinda-acknowledge cannot work. And FWIW: I agree, it's fucked, it needs to stop, both in the public and private sector, and anyone that works on such tech should be shunned. But your assumptions are false to fact.