4 ms·

I honestly believe that this is a mistake. Current laws in the EU allow for surveillance (mass) that to limit the ability to discover, detect, individuals or g

I honestly believe that this is a mistake. Current laws in the EU allow for surveillance (mass) that to limit the ability to discover, detect, individuals or groups that are dangerous to society seems self limiting. This is considering that they already have exceptional police powers. In a way, i think they are limiting this technology for society to detect illegal acts by politicians. Rather than the other way around.

fizzibubbele 5y ago
Your phrasing isnt quite clear.
f6v 5y ago
While I agree with you, the ability to act seems to be a bigger issue. The Berlin Christmas market terrorist was “on the radar” and was supposed to be deported. But the German police did nothing about it.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  Yeah, it's not the police investigation process that's broken here...
turbinerneiter 5y ago
There is a very simple test to check if something is a good idea or not: What would Hitler have done with it? This is why in Germany there were protests against recording peoples religion during the census. All of these surveillance tools are based on the notion that the people who use them are the good guys. But there is no guarantee that they are now and will forever be.
- iso1210 5y ago
  > This is why in Germany there were protests against recording peoples religion during the census. Indeed, and Hitler did use census to identify Jews to kill, thanks to the sabotaging actions of René Carmille, tens of thousands of lives were saved (although Carmille himself survived torture, he died in January 45) The first ethical hacker doesn't get enough exposure IMO. "He also hacked his own machines, reprogramming them so that they’d never punch information from Column 11 [which indicated religion] onto any census card"
- sofixa 5y ago
  > There is a very simple test to check if something is a good idea or not: > What would Hitler have done with it? That's a very simplistic test that falls flat on its face when you realise Hitler loved animals, was a vegetarian, and despised smoking and alcohol. By your test, animal cruelty and self-poisoning are fine because Hitler disproved of them?
  - throw8765 5y ago
    >By your test, animal cruelty and self-poisoning are fine because Hitler disproved of them? AIUI it's not "what would Hitler think" but "what would Hitler do given the opportunity". As in, Hitler couldn't use self-poisoning to further his goals, but he could use mass surveillance.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    You flipped my logic on the head there, you know that, right? I never sad to do the opposite of what Hitler liked. Let me rephrase my statement and then check if people are still that triggered by it: Whenever you grant your government power, think about how this power could be abused if the government changes and your favouvered party is not in charge anymore.
- f6v 5y ago
  > What would Hitler have done with it? What would Hitler do with space ships? Colonize the Moon, I guess. > This is why in Germany there were protests against recording peoples religion during the census. You already do that for tax purposes, right?
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    The context for this, simplified, rule is policy, power granted to government or institutions (companies, ...) over other people. It is done for tax purposes, yes, and it probably shouldn't be.
    - csunbird 5y ago
      But, the replacement would be to tax everyone for a smaller amount, which would be unfair. I am not a believer and I do not want to pay from someones sunday ceremonies.
      - turbinerneiter 5y ago
        True. Not sure what the best thing to do would be. But I don't think the government needs a list of all people with a certain religion. Could be abused. In the end, the only reason we have this is that the church and the state are to close. Religion is private. If you are a member of a church, you pay your membership fee to the church. No need for the government to be involved. It's nothing I would start a revolution about, but slowly change the system and make it better.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
buran77 5y ago
Any law that gives regular law abiding citizens privacy is also shielding "terrorists and pedophiles" by affording them the same. Any such law will get blanket application over the whole population. On the other hand the real issue I see is that while the EU will put the breaks on its own development of the tech, the US and China will accelerate it. Sooner or later the EU will likely drop the position when the stakes are high enough and it suits "someone", and just back channel to obtain access to it. Which is possibly the worst position to be in.
- arthurcolle 5y ago
  Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. Personally I think this AI stuff is pretty neat, but society must have a larger conversation around the existing power structures before we just let the most well capitalized business entities and their business owners (again, some of the wealthiest figures in recorded history) utilize these tools through which capital will become further concentrated just because some of their employees have a PhD and make 350k and now are able to just spend all their time developing technologies with clear non-linear payoffs, enriching some at the explicit expense of others at a structurally different rate than previous technological innovations. What does everyone think of Palantir? Do they have much of a foothold in Europe? I imagine not since they are direct contractors to the US government, but I mean they are again doing massive data analytics on the human population in ways that are almost as sketchy as Facebook, but with worse implications because of the direct interfacing with the military-industrial complex.
  - ThalesX 5y ago
    > Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. But why not? Long as we're talking about 'reality annihilation' technology, maybe the researches stumble upon unknown truths about reality. Perhaps they also touch upon 'reality creating' technology, giving them infinite cups of Earl Gray tea. As long as someone is going to use AI to create immense wealth for themselves, and potentially destructive weapons, as a European, I think we'd be fools not to try and at least understand the developments, the risks, and have contingency plans (think Batman) for dealing with what might come out of it. Things we can't do without our own research and know how.

fizzibubbele 5y ago

Your phrasing isnt quite clear.

f6v 5y ago

While I agree with you, the ability to act seems to be a bigger issue. The Berlin Christmas market terrorist was “on the radar” and was supposed to be deported. But the German police did nothing about it.

throwaway3699 5y ago
Yeah, it's not the police investigation process that's broken here...

turbinerneiter 5y ago

There is a very simple test to check if something is a good idea or not: What would Hitler have done with it? This is why in Germany there were protests against recording peoples religion during the census. All of these surveillance tools are based on the notion that the people who use them are the good guys. But there is no guarantee that they are now and will forever be.

iso1210 5y ago
> This is why in Germany there were protests against recording peoples religion during the census. Indeed, and Hitler did use census to identify Jews to kill, thanks to the sabotaging actions of René Carmille, tens of thousands of lives were saved (although Carmille himself survived torture, he died in January 45) The first ethical hacker doesn't get enough exposure IMO. "He also hacked his own machines, reprogramming them so that they’d never punch information from Column 11 [which indicated religion] onto any census card"
sofixa 5y ago
> There is a very simple test to check if something is a good idea or not: > What would Hitler have done with it? That's a very simplistic test that falls flat on its face when you realise Hitler loved animals, was a vegetarian, and despised smoking and alcohol. By your test, animal cruelty and self-poisoning are fine because Hitler disproved of them?
- throw8765 5y ago
  >By your test, animal cruelty and self-poisoning are fine because Hitler disproved of them? AIUI it's not "what would Hitler think" but "what would Hitler do given the opportunity". As in, Hitler couldn't use self-poisoning to further his goals, but he could use mass surveillance.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  You flipped my logic on the head there, you know that, right? I never sad to do the opposite of what Hitler liked. Let me rephrase my statement and then check if people are still that triggered by it: Whenever you grant your government power, think about how this power could be abused if the government changes and your favouvered party is not in charge anymore.
f6v 5y ago
> What would Hitler have done with it? What would Hitler do with space ships? Colonize the Moon, I guess. > This is why in Germany there were protests against recording peoples religion during the census. You already do that for tax purposes, right?
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  The context for this, simplified, rule is policy, power granted to government or institutions (companies, ...) over other people. It is done for tax purposes, yes, and it probably shouldn't be.
  - csunbird 5y ago
    But, the replacement would be to tax everyone for a smaller amount, which would be unfair. I am not a believer and I do not want to pay from someones sunday ceremonies.
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      True. Not sure what the best thing to do would be. But I don't think the government needs a list of all people with a certain religion. Could be abused. In the end, the only reason we have this is that the church and the state are to close. Religion is private. If you are a member of a church, you pay your membership fee to the church. No need for the government to be involved. It's nothing I would start a revolution about, but slowly change the system and make it better.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

buran77 5y ago

Any law that gives regular law abiding citizens privacy is also shielding "terrorists and pedophiles" by affording them the same. Any such law will get blanket application over the whole population. On the other hand the real issue I see is that while the EU will put the breaks on its own development of the tech, the US and China will accelerate it. Sooner or later the EU will likely drop the position when the stakes are high enough and it suits "someone", and just back channel to obtain access to it. Which is possibly the worst position to be in.

arthurcolle 5y ago
Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. Personally I think this AI stuff is pretty neat, but society must have a larger conversation around the existing power structures before we just let the most well capitalized business entities and their business owners (again, some of the wealthiest figures in recorded history) utilize these tools through which capital will become further concentrated just because some of their employees have a PhD and make 350k and now are able to just spend all their time developing technologies with clear non-linear payoffs, enriching some at the explicit expense of others at a structurally different rate than previous technological innovations. What does everyone think of Palantir? Do they have much of a foothold in Europe? I imagine not since they are direct contractors to the US government, but I mean they are again doing massive data analytics on the human population in ways that are almost as sketchy as Facebook, but with worse implications because of the direct interfacing with the military-industrial complex.
- ThalesX 5y ago
  > Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. But why not? Long as we're talking about 'reality annihilation' technology, maybe the researches stumble upon unknown truths about reality. Perhaps they also touch upon 'reality creating' technology, giving them infinite cups of Earl Gray tea. As long as someone is going to use AI to create immense wealth for themselves, and potentially destructive weapons, as a European, I think we'd be fools not to try and at least understand the developments, the risks, and have contingency plans (think Batman) for dealing with what might come out of it. Things we can't do without our own research and know how.