6 ms·

I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral f

I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies to be entrusted with surveilance of the masses, to be the most useless and untrustworthy stewart of the public imagineable.

causi 4y ago
It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it Hard disagree. Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations. When it's misused by individuals it's usually based on information freely given. An individual might send your employer an insensitive tweet you made ten years ago but an organization can do anything from unmasking an anonymous product review for the purpose of suing you to operating a massive surveillance state to fuel a "social credit" system.
- sul_tasto 4y ago
  I think this is a false choice.
  - ChumpTheMasses 4y ago
    would you expand upon that
    - sul_tasto 4y ago
      I’m not sure individuals -or- organizations can be fully trusted. It’s one reason for the 4th amendment, or the requirements for auditing of companies by independent accounting firms, or all sorts of laws restricting individuals, organizations and even governments in one way or another.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations Of course. There are more individuals in larger organizations :)
  - bigfudge 4y ago
    I think you are just making a joke, which is fine, but I would reassert the point I think the OP was making that there is a qualitative difference in the nature of the abuses committed by individuals and firms.
drewcoo 4y ago
As an anarchist, I wish we could have conversations on any topic about something other than two contrived polar opposite positions. Life is not neat dichotomies. People are just trained to take a simpleton's view of things.
kradeelav 4y ago
Unfortunately with the various moral panics going on, folks who lean towards the middle / nuanced balanced thoughts are more afraid and reluctant to put their thoughts out there. It just isn't worth the brain-width or having potential people yell at you for toeing various party lines. The death of questioning is imo one of the more disheartening things in the last 5-10 years. To your last point, I personally skew towards being deeply suspicious of institutional power being able to have more tools to further leverage the tilt against the individual, but you're also not wrong with individuals being deeply flawed beings too.
KindAndFriendly 4y ago
> ... i find the three letter agencies to be entrusted with surveilance of the masses, to be the most useless and untrustworthy stewart of the public imagineable What makes you think so? For example, the German government prevented a number of terror attacks by monitoring electronic chat and mail exchange.
- atoav 4y ago
  The problem is that every democratic government is ultimately based on the idea to give some people enough power so they can govern, but not so much that they cannot be removed from power again. That balance is not something that would remain uninfluenced by giving the executive the power to surveil the population that brings a government into power.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  The German government is not a good example for well behaved governments, especially in regards to individual rights and free expression. Fear drives surveillance ambitions and some stereotypes have some merit.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
It seems pretty obvious that the ~~individual~~ government can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it.
735409264082 4y ago
No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual. Groups of individuals who claim the right to enforce their will on other individuals by means of violence (e.g. governments) can be trusted least of all.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual. That's going to depend heavily on which individual.
carapace 4y ago
I think the panopticon is unavoidable (I'll expand below) so the question is how to harness it to get a humane techno-totalitarian system? People have pointed out that "humane totalitarian" is an oxymoron, and I agree, but I think it's the challenge we face. It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streaming their lives. (This is in the context where we are all live-streaming 24/7 whether we want to or not, which is pretty much the case today at least in high-tech nations.) Police badges should be integrated with cameras, the badge IS the camera, the camera IS the badge, and if the camera is off the officer is off-duty. Thoughts? - - - - I think the panopticon is unavoidable due to technological and economic considerations. The technology is only getting smaller, cheaper, lower-power, etc. and it's already ubiquitous. (See "sensing for WiFi if you really want to freak out!) Our phones already monitor and report our location in near realtime. Smart cars and traffic systems are a de facto surveillance system even for people who don't carry phones. The economic benefits are inarguable, and only going to get better. And really, if you could trade your privacy for an end to almost all crime, isn't that worth it? Considering that you wouldn't be alone, that everyone else's privacy is gone too, it's not so bad?
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  None of that requires identification.
- ArboriaInstitut 4y ago
  > It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streaming their lives. This all sounds equally as feasible as simply rolling back the surveillance in the first place. The whole point of these systems is to subject the hoi polloi to constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic. Why in the world would they agree to do that to themselves as well?
  - carapace 4y ago
    I'm saying that the economics will drive adoption regardless of political structures. The folks in power will be surveilled too, whether they like it or not (if nothing else they have to surveil each other!) The more power you have, the more people study you. The "constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic" is a side-effect. And frankly, we should be so lucky that it works (when it works.) I personally think the time for deciding things by violence-- any violence --has passed. In re: political power, we'll see how it plays out in different systems. In China the question is, Will CCP members be subject to the Social Credit System? In democracies we should be able to reshape our systems to take advantage of modern technology to make boring, functioning governing bodies that "just work", but we have to get from here to there.

causi 4y ago

It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it Hard disagree. Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations. When it's misused by individuals it's usually based on information freely given. An individual might send your employer an insensitive tweet you made ten years ago but an organization can do anything from unmasking an anonymous product review for the purpose of suing you to operating a massive surveillance state to fuel a "social credit" system.

sul_tasto 4y ago
I think this is a false choice.
- ChumpTheMasses 4y ago
  would you expand upon that
  - sul_tasto 4y ago
    I’m not sure individuals -or- organizations can be fully trusted. It’s one reason for the 4th amendment, or the requirements for auditing of companies by independent accounting firms, or all sorts of laws restricting individuals, organizations and even governments in one way or another.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations Of course. There are more individuals in larger organizations :)
- bigfudge 4y ago
  I think you are just making a joke, which is fine, but I would reassert the point I think the OP was making that there is a qualitative difference in the nature of the abuses committed by individuals and firms.

drewcoo 4y ago

As an anarchist, I wish we could have conversations on any topic about something other than two contrived polar opposite positions. Life is not neat dichotomies. People are just trained to take a simpleton's view of things.

kradeelav 4y ago

Unfortunately with the various moral panics going on, folks who lean towards the middle / nuanced balanced thoughts are more afraid and reluctant to put their thoughts out there. It just isn't worth the brain-width or having potential people yell at you for toeing various party lines. The death of questioning is imo one of the more disheartening things in the last 5-10 years. To your last point, I personally skew towards being deeply suspicious of institutional power being able to have more tools to further leverage the tilt against the individual, but you're also not wrong with individuals being deeply flawed beings too.

KindAndFriendly 4y ago

> ... i find the three letter agencies to be entrusted with surveilance of the masses, to be the most useless and untrustworthy stewart of the public imagineable What makes you think so? For example, the German government prevented a number of terror attacks by monitoring electronic chat and mail exchange.

atoav 4y ago
The problem is that every democratic government is ultimately based on the idea to give some people enough power so they can govern, but not so much that they cannot be removed from power again. That balance is not something that would remain uninfluenced by giving the executive the power to surveil the population that brings a government into power.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
The German government is not a good example for well behaved governments, especially in regards to individual rights and free expression. Fear drives surveillance ambitions and some stereotypes have some merit.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

It seems pretty obvious that the ~~individual~~ government can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it.

735409264082 4y ago

No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual. Groups of individuals who claim the right to enforce their will on other individuals by means of violence (e.g. governments) can be trusted least of all.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual. That's going to depend heavily on which individual.

carapace 4y ago

I think the panopticon is unavoidable (I'll expand below) so the question is how to harness it to get a humane techno-totalitarian system? People have pointed out that "humane totalitarian" is an oxymoron, and I agree, but I think it's the challenge we face. It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streaming their lives. (This is in the context where we are all live-streaming 24/7 whether we want to or not, which is pretty much the case today at least in high-tech nations.) Police badges should be integrated with cameras, the badge IS the camera, the camera IS the badge, and if the camera is off the officer is off-duty. Thoughts? - - - - I think the panopticon is unavoidable due to technological and economic considerations. The technology is only getting smaller, cheaper, lower-power, etc. and it's already ubiquitous. (See "sensing for WiFi if you really want to freak out!) Our phones already monitor and report our location in near realtime. Smart cars and traffic systems are a de facto surveillance system even for people who don't carry phones. The economic benefits are inarguable, and only going to get better. And really, if you could trade your privacy for an end to almost all crime, isn't that worth it? Considering that you wouldn't be alone, that everyone else's privacy is gone too, it's not so bad?

robertlagrant 4y ago
None of that requires identification.
ArboriaInstitut 4y ago
> It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streaming their lives. This all sounds equally as feasible as simply rolling back the surveillance in the first place. The whole point of these systems is to subject the hoi polloi to constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic. Why in the world would they agree to do that to themselves as well?
- carapace 4y ago
  I'm saying that the economics will drive adoption regardless of political structures. The folks in power will be surveilled too, whether they like it or not (if nothing else they have to surveil each other!) The more power you have, the more people study you. The "constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic" is a side-effect. And frankly, we should be so lucky that it works (when it works.) I personally think the time for deciding things by violence-- any violence --has passed. In re: political power, we'll see how it plays out in different systems. In China the question is, Will CCP members be subject to the Social Credit System? In democracies we should be able to reshape our systems to take advantage of modern technology to make boring, functioning governing bodies that "just work", but we have to get from here to there.