3 ms·

Privacy is dead. There are too many signals, too many recorders, too much CPU power. (I want to be clear: I don't like it and I'm not advocating for it, I jus

Privacy is dead. There are too many signals, too many recorders, too much CPU power. (I want to be clear: I don't like it and I'm not advocating for it, I just don't see a way out/around it.) In return for our privacy, most forms of crime could be made difficult or impossible, so it behooves us to make our laws carefully. - - - - You can't make ubiquitous surveillance illegal because you have to use it to make sure no one is violating the ban on using it. It's one of those logical "This sentence is a lie." loops, eh?

erentz 6y ago
> Privacy is dead This is a choice. It doesn’t have to be this way. Laws regulating collection and use of data are possible and don’t have to be complicated. They do run up against the interests of those that use that data for their business, but again, that is explicitly a choice on our part as to whether we put their interests ahead of our own. You really can’t run get around these laws without being obvious and easily stopped.
- andreilys 6y ago
  The collection and use of data by governments far outstrips businesses. You’re asking governments to put restrictions on their power. You can see how the incentives are not exactly aligned.
- carapace 6y ago
  Crypto AG was a CIA front. That's a real thing that happened. How can we be sure no one is using the tech without using the tech? (And, once someone somewhere is using the tech, why not solve all crime? Why have the illusion of privacy, and permit e.g. kidnapping, rape, murder?)
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I agree, at least in the long term. However, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. The reason we perceive it as bad right now is because it is unequal: you and I do not have access to the systems that make privacy an obsolete concept, and some other people (namely those in positions of power) have the ability to keep themselves out of that system. It seems likely that this will eventually no longer be true and society will adapt to a world where privacy no longer exists for anyone. I would wager that, looking backward, they will probably even wonder what all the fuss was about.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Of all the possible outcomes of the evolution of privacy, I have zero confidence that either the public will have equal access to surveillance, or that the powerful will be equally subject to it.
- carapace 6y ago
  Yeah. Stephen Baxter wrote a novel about the invention of the time camera ("Light of Other Days") and in it, before long, folks are screwing in public because, hey, everybody who wants to can look anyway so who cares? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days > The Light of Other Days is a 2000 science fiction novel written by Stephen Baxter based on a synopsis by Arthur C. Clarke,[1] which explores the development of wormhole technology to the point where information can be passed instantaneously between points in the spacetime continuum.
  - rapnie 6y ago
    That was a great thought-experiment elaborated to book's length. Loved it.
pjc50 6y ago
> most forms of crime could be made difficult or impossible At this point we discover just how subjective most crime really is.
- carapace 6y ago
  Yah, a "humane tyranny" if such a thing is possible.

erentz 6y ago

> Privacy is dead This is a choice. It doesn’t have to be this way. Laws regulating collection and use of data are possible and don’t have to be complicated. They do run up against the interests of those that use that data for their business, but again, that is explicitly a choice on our part as to whether we put their interests ahead of our own. You really can’t run get around these laws without being obvious and easily stopped.

andreilys 6y ago
The collection and use of data by governments far outstrips businesses. You’re asking governments to put restrictions on their power. You can see how the incentives are not exactly aligned.
carapace 6y ago
Crypto AG was a CIA front. That's a real thing that happened. How can we be sure no one is using the tech without using the tech? (And, once someone somewhere is using the tech, why not solve all crime? Why have the illusion of privacy, and permit e.g. kidnapping, rape, murder?)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

I agree, at least in the long term. However, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. The reason we perceive it as bad right now is because it is unequal: you and I do not have access to the systems that make privacy an obsolete concept, and some other people (namely those in positions of power) have the ability to keep themselves out of that system. It seems likely that this will eventually no longer be true and society will adapt to a world where privacy no longer exists for anyone. I would wager that, looking backward, they will probably even wonder what all the fuss was about.

nitrogen 6y ago
Of all the possible outcomes of the evolution of privacy, I have zero confidence that either the public will have equal access to surveillance, or that the powerful will be equally subject to it.
carapace 6y ago
Yeah. Stephen Baxter wrote a novel about the invention of the time camera ("Light of Other Days") and in it, before long, folks are screwing in public because, hey, everybody who wants to can look anyway so who cares? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days > The Light of Other Days is a 2000 science fiction novel written by Stephen Baxter based on a synopsis by Arthur C. Clarke,[1] which explores the development of wormhole technology to the point where information can be passed instantaneously between points in the spacetime continuum.
- rapnie 6y ago
  That was a great thought-experiment elaborated to book's length. Loved it.

pjc50 6y ago

> most forms of crime could be made difficult or impossible At this point we discover just how subjective most crime really is.

carapace 6y ago
Yah, a "humane tyranny" if such a thing is possible.