3 ms·

These are all just tools that can just as easily be used for good as evil. You choose to look at the negative possibilities while ignoring the positive ones.

by treis 5y ago

These are all just tools that can just as easily be used for good as evil. You choose to look at the negative possibilities while ignoring the positive ones. As an example, if we're all tracked and recorded in public that will pretty much end non-domestic crime. Or at least guarantee that anyone that commits a crime will be caught and punished. AFAICT there's little to no evidence to tie advancing technology to authoritarianism or otherwise diminished civil liberties. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and any number of others through out history have created repressive regimes without modern technology. And in the West we are a freer and more just society than we ever have been.

karaterobot 5y ago
> As an example, if we're all tracked and recorded in public that will pretty much end non-domestic crime. Or at least guarantee that anyone that commits a crime will be caught and punished. Where's the evidence for this? As pointed out above, we're already being tracked, and it doesn't seem to have stopped all crime, or even cut it down in a noticeable way. As for being recorded in public, that hasn't even even stopped 7-11s from being robbed, let alone preventing or resolving all crime everywhere. > AFAICT there's little to no evidence to tie advancing technology to authoritarianism or otherwise diminished civil liberties. Do you remember how there was a time when having a scan of your naked body examined by a stranger at the airport was considered at least mildly invasive? That was just a few years ago. Now, we're used to it. That's a small example of how fast humans adapt to preserve their sense that everything is fine. The amount of surveillance we consider normal today would have seemed oppressive not long ago. > Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and any number of others through out history have created repressive regimes without modern technology. It's true that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not use GPS tracking against their citizens, because (being dead) they didn't have the option to use it. But electronic surveillance has been the tool of every country's secret police dating back to the invention of the telephone, so I'm not sure what you mean.
- treis 5y ago
  >Where's the evidence for this? As pointed out above, we're already being tracked, and it doesn't seem to have stopped all crime, or even cut it down in a noticeable way. As for being recorded in public, that hasn't even even stopped 7-11s from being robbed, let alone preventing or resolving all crime everywhere. All of the people in jail that were caught by surveillance that can't commit crimes is a good piece of evidence. Otherwise, it's hard to prove anything about crime because we can't do double blind experiments in the real world. Either way, we are talking about theoretical perfect surveillance. Every crime would be caught on 4k HD and the criminals location tracked. Hard to imagine how you'd get away with a crime in that scenario. >Do you remember how there was a time when having a scan of your naked body examined by a stranger at the airport was considered at least mildly invasive? That was just a few years ago. Now, we're used to it. That's a small example of how fast humans adapt to preserve their sense that everything is fine. The amount of surveillance we consider normal today would have seemed oppressive not long ago. TSA seems perfectly happy to fondle your junk instead. So whatever we've lost there isn't due to technology. If anything technology helps because it gives us a choice between naked body examination and junk fondling. >It's true that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not use GPS tracking against their citizens, because (being dead) they didn't have the option to use it. But electronic surveillance has been the tool of every country's secret police dating back to the invention of the telephone, so I'm not sure what you mean. The point is that repression and technology are orthogonal issues. You can have brutally repressive regimes with no modern technology. And, as I said before, the trend seems to be away from repressive regimes so there's little reason to think technology contributes to their existence.

by treis 5y ago

karaterobot 5y ago

> As an example, if we're all tracked and recorded in public that will pretty much end non-domestic crime. Or at least guarantee that anyone that commits a crime will be caught and punished. Where's the evidence for this? As pointed out above, we're already being tracked, and it doesn't seem to have stopped all crime, or even cut it down in a noticeable way. As for being recorded in public, that hasn't even even stopped 7-11s from being robbed, let alone preventing or resolving all crime everywhere. > AFAICT there's little to no evidence to tie advancing technology to authoritarianism or otherwise diminished civil liberties. Do you remember how there was a time when having a scan of your naked body examined by a stranger at the airport was considered at least mildly invasive? That was just a few years ago. Now, we're used to it. That's a small example of how fast humans adapt to preserve their sense that everything is fine. The amount of surveillance we consider normal today would have seemed oppressive not long ago. > Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and any number of others through out history have created repressive regimes without modern technology. It's true that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not use GPS tracking against their citizens, because (being dead) they didn't have the option to use it. But electronic surveillance has been the tool of every country's secret police dating back to the invention of the telephone, so I'm not sure what you mean.

treis 5y ago
>Where's the evidence for this? As pointed out above, we're already being tracked, and it doesn't seem to have stopped all crime, or even cut it down in a noticeable way. As for being recorded in public, that hasn't even even stopped 7-11s from being robbed, let alone preventing or resolving all crime everywhere. All of the people in jail that were caught by surveillance that can't commit crimes is a good piece of evidence. Otherwise, it's hard to prove anything about crime because we can't do double blind experiments in the real world. Either way, we are talking about theoretical perfect surveillance. Every crime would be caught on 4k HD and the criminals location tracked. Hard to imagine how you'd get away with a crime in that scenario. >Do you remember how there was a time when having a scan of your naked body examined by a stranger at the airport was considered at least mildly invasive? That was just a few years ago. Now, we're used to it. That's a small example of how fast humans adapt to preserve their sense that everything is fine. The amount of surveillance we consider normal today would have seemed oppressive not long ago. TSA seems perfectly happy to fondle your junk instead. So whatever we've lost there isn't due to technology. If anything technology helps because it gives us a choice between naked body examination and junk fondling. >It's true that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did not use GPS tracking against their citizens, because (being dead) they didn't have the option to use it. But electronic surveillance has been the tool of every country's secret police dating back to the invention of the telephone, so I'm not sure what you mean. The point is that repression and technology are orthogonal issues. You can have brutally repressive regimes with no modern technology. And, as I said before, the trend seems to be away from repressive regimes so there's little reason to think technology contributes to their existence.