4 ms·

We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. To say all this when it’s not relevant to the present is a little silly in my view. We don’t have came

We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. To say all this when it’s not relevant to the present is a little silly in my view. We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves, someone’s recollections are not the same as an video file in terms of evidence, and there’s a substantial difference between someone actively on the street corner watching and security camera you can set and forget which will record 24/7.

dheera 5y ago
> We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. Maybe you aren't, that doesn't mean everyone chooses that lifestyle or should be forced into that mode of thinking. I for one choose to think in terms of the future. > We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves Oh you bet I do happen to have a piece of flash storage embedded in my body, for a reason I choose to not disclose here. Although mine is not wired into an imaging device, it's only a matter of time before someone else's flash implant IS wired to an imaging device, and they have every right to.
blitzar 5y ago
The human eye, with or without a cybernetic enhancement is admissible in court. Indeed 'eye witness' testimony, despite being horribly unreliable is particularly powerful in court. Personally I see little to no difference between human eyes and film eyes when one is standing in the middle of the street 50 years ago, let alone now with some implied cybernetics that make the difference actually zero. If the argument is that a snapshot can not be observed as a collection of light wa eves hitting cellulose, or a digital sesnsor then one has to ask the question if allow the receptors in the human eyeball to detect the reflections of light is acceptable either.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Your memories carry little to no weight if they conflict with some more tangible record in a dispute. When that changes, there will no doubt be other ramifications, like neural disrupters or jamming technologies.
- michaelt 5y ago
  The issue is whether a vast difference in quantity and price creates a difference on principle. For example, if surveying a person in the 1970s cost $300k per year to have them constantly followed, the cops needed few other limits as the cost alone means it won’t become pervasive. But if you can get almost the same surveillance in 2021 for $10 per annum, nothing qualitative has changed - but the primary control on overreach has gone.

dheera 5y ago

> We’re living in the present, not some cybernetic future. Maybe you aren't, that doesn't mean everyone chooses that lifestyle or should be forced into that mode of thinking. I for one choose to think in terms of the future. > We don’t have cameras and flash embedded in ourselves Oh you bet I do happen to have a piece of flash storage embedded in my body, for a reason I choose to not disclose here. Although mine is not wired into an imaging device, it's only a matter of time before someone else's flash implant IS wired to an imaging device, and they have every right to.

blitzar 5y ago

The human eye, with or without a cybernetic enhancement is admissible in court. Indeed 'eye witness' testimony, despite being horribly unreliable is particularly powerful in court. Personally I see little to no difference between human eyes and film eyes when one is standing in the middle of the street 50 years ago, let alone now with some implied cybernetics that make the difference actually zero. If the argument is that a snapshot can not be observed as a collection of light wa eves hitting cellulose, or a digital sesnsor then one has to ask the question if allow the receptors in the human eyeball to detect the reflections of light is acceptable either.

anigbrowl 5y ago
Your memories carry little to no weight if they conflict with some more tangible record in a dispute. When that changes, there will no doubt be other ramifications, like neural disrupters or jamming technologies.
michaelt 5y ago
The issue is whether a vast difference in quantity and price creates a difference on principle. For example, if surveying a person in the 1970s cost $300k per year to have them constantly followed, the cops needed few other limits as the cost alone means it won’t become pervasive. But if you can get almost the same surveillance in 2021 for $10 per annum, nothing qualitative has changed - but the primary control on overreach has gone.