4 ms·

This article reminds me a lot of recent discussions I've had with people about Covid vaccination. Most of the vaccine-hesitant people I know do not have a speci

This article reminds me a lot of recent discussions I've had with people about Covid vaccination. Most of the vaccine-hesitant people I know do not have a specific reason why they don't want to be vaccinated. They just see this push toward large scale transformation of some kind, they hear exaggerated stories of harm done by the vaccine in obscure cases, and as a result they are afraid and insist that they are better off not getting vaccinated. These anti-vaccine people even make a lot of the EXACT same points in the article, for example "the pervasive presence of surveillance helps produce people who are more at ease with it". Specifically that the widespread distribution of this vaccine may not be harmful, but that it gets people used to the idea of the government injecting them with chemicals. Phrases like "webs of control".... I see data privacy as essentially the same. If it's done right, with reasonable oversight and regulation, everyone would be much better off with what this article calls "ubiquitous surveillance". I welcome it and love the improvements in my life that it has brought, and I'm hoping that the USA doesn't end up holding itself back out of a misplaced fear of the unknown.

titzer 5y ago
> . If it's done right, with reasonable oversight and regulation, everyone would be much better off with what this article calls "ubiquitous surveillance". No.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I agree with titzer. It will be a good thing if "the right people" run it? Yeah, but what if they don't? What if, say, "the wrong people" build their parallel system? Worse, what if they get their hands on the main one? What if it doesn't stay in the hands of "the right people" forever? The stasi might have been good, if they had reasonable oversight and regulation. But they didn't, and they weren't. When the wall fell, they didn't put the stasi under different supervision. They dismantled the stasi, because that level of surveillance was incompatible with a free society.
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    You put it in quotes, but I didn't say "right people". Powerful tools can be misused. This is also true of encryption, but I'm still in favor of easy access to strong encryption. In both cases (data collection and encryption), I think there are good arguments on both sides, but in both cases I think the benefits of the new technology outweigh the potential harm. In general I'm just not opposed to new technologies until I see specific reasons why we should be afraid of them, and weigh those reasons against the potential harm and cost.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      "With reasonable oversight and regulation" seems to me to be "the right people controlling it". Imagine your "reasonable oversight" board. Now imagine a Trump appointee running it. Or appointees by Xi or Putin or Orban or Erdogan.
      - mgraczyk 5y ago
        A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. If I lived in an autocracy, I'd be less likely to support government surveillance.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. Depends on how you interpret January 6th. And a Trump-appointed surveillance board could have been used to make January 6th more successful...
        mgraczyk 5y ago
        They could have also used the military or nuclear weapons... To be clear we're not talking about a board that performs surveillance. We're talking about government responsibility to set rules, and to investigate and prosecute violations of those rules. I agree that bad things can be done by bad people. The more interesting question to me is whether or not the potential badness is outweighed by the benefits. In this specific case, I think better surveillance would have done more to prevent January 6 than to exacerbate it. Clearly in retrospect, social media data was instrumental in prosecuting those who physically entered the capitol. So in this case I think more surveillance would have improved the situation.
blooalien 5y ago
> … and I'm hoping that the USA doesn't end up holding itself back out of a misplaced fear of the unknown. Why not? It's worked pretty well for the richest of the rich 1% of humanity thus far. Holding back societal and technological progress to enrich the smallest percentage because they fear any change that might make the world better for everyone is what humans do (and have done for too many decades now). Just in the home computer industry alone, we're at least a couple decades worth of advancement behind where we really could and should be, all because of a couple few massive corporate interests holding the entire industry back from progress out of fear of various "unknowns" in the industry. Unknowns that in some cases have eventually played out to be of huge benefit to everyone (including themselves). The prevailing attitude seems to be that "because it's always been done that way" is a valid excuse to hold back any form of real progress, and doubly so if holding back progress leads to extended financial gains for a few specific individuals or corporate entities. (No longer care. Downvote me all you like. I've come to realize humanity's genuinely fucked anyhow, so nothing I or anyone else says or does at this point matters one little bit. Honestly not even sure why I'm bothering to read or comment on anything anymore, because it's all truly pointless bullshit.)

titzer 5y ago

> . If it's done right, with reasonable oversight and regulation, everyone would be much better off with what this article calls "ubiquitous surveillance". No.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I agree with titzer. It will be a good thing if "the right people" run it? Yeah, but what if they don't? What if, say, "the wrong people" build their parallel system? Worse, what if they get their hands on the main one? What if it doesn't stay in the hands of "the right people" forever? The stasi might have been good, if they had reasonable oversight and regulation. But they didn't, and they weren't. When the wall fell, they didn't put the stasi under different supervision. They dismantled the stasi, because that level of surveillance was incompatible with a free society.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  You put it in quotes, but I didn't say "right people". Powerful tools can be misused. This is also true of encryption, but I'm still in favor of easy access to strong encryption. In both cases (data collection and encryption), I think there are good arguments on both sides, but in both cases I think the benefits of the new technology outweigh the potential harm. In general I'm just not opposed to new technologies until I see specific reasons why we should be afraid of them, and weigh those reasons against the potential harm and cost.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    "With reasonable oversight and regulation" seems to me to be "the right people controlling it". Imagine your "reasonable oversight" board. Now imagine a Trump appointee running it. Or appointees by Xi or Putin or Orban or Erdogan.
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. If I lived in an autocracy, I'd be less likely to support government surveillance.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > A trump appointee would likely be replaced in 4 years. Depends on how you interpret January 6th. And a Trump-appointed surveillance board could have been used to make January 6th more successful...
        mgraczyk 5y ago
        They could have also used the military or nuclear weapons... To be clear we're not talking about a board that performs surveillance. We're talking about government responsibility to set rules, and to investigate and prosecute violations of those rules. I agree that bad things can be done by bad people. The more interesting question to me is whether or not the potential badness is outweighed by the benefits. In this specific case, I think better surveillance would have done more to prevent January 6 than to exacerbate it. Clearly in retrospect, social media data was instrumental in prosecuting those who physically entered the capitol. So in this case I think more surveillance would have improved the situation.

blooalien 5y ago

> … and I'm hoping that the USA doesn't end up holding itself back out of a misplaced fear of the unknown. Why not? It's worked pretty well for the richest of the rich 1% of humanity thus far. Holding back societal and technological progress to enrich the smallest percentage because they fear any change that might make the world better for everyone is what humans do (and have done for too many decades now). Just in the home computer industry alone, we're at least a couple decades worth of advancement behind where we really could and should be, all because of a couple few massive corporate interests holding the entire industry back from progress out of fear of various "unknowns" in the industry. Unknowns that in some cases have eventually played out to be of huge benefit to everyone (including themselves). The prevailing attitude seems to be that "because it's always been done that way" is a valid excuse to hold back any form of real progress, and doubly so if holding back progress leads to extended financial gains for a few specific individuals or corporate entities. (No longer care. Downvote me all you like. I've come to realize humanity's genuinely fucked anyhow, so nothing I or anyone else says or does at this point matters one little bit. Honestly not even sure why I'm bothering to read or comment on anything anymore, because it's all truly pointless bullshit.)