3 ms·
I think you hit the nail on the head. The original problem with The Panopticon was that it was 1 person in the center observing X amount of people. And at best
by mystraline 1y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head.
The original problem with The Panopticon was that it was 1 person in the center observing X amount of people. And at best, was a probabilistic 'am I being watched right now? ' with the answer of very low probability. For complete surveillance, you'd need a surveiller per watched.
Enter technology.
Now the surveillance isn't a person, but a set of computer programs. And, optimizing and analyzing the limited data flow out of a user is doable.
And you then have computational spies everywhere. Most of them are limited to specific usecases. However the more data is shared, the tighter fascist control can be maintained. Then it just comes to 'detected event' and 'summon the secret police'.
- bratwurst3000 1y agothis is on point. I tell this people since years. "if you share more data they have easyer acces to controll you"
- wing-_-nuts 1y agoNot only that, a fascist state can identify people who are 'politically undesirable', then go back through the mountain of data held by private companies (facebook, google, chatbots, etc), trawl it to automatically create a dossier of kompromat, and apply pressure, repress voter turnout, etc.
- retox 1y agoYeah, a communist State would never
- robotnikman 1y agoIsn't China already doing something like this?
- redeeman 1y agoand the western countries