4 ms·

My main concern is transparency. How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring

My main concern is transparency. How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. However, if some people are exempt from monitoring because of their connections, relations, etc. then that would be unfair. And if some people are allowed to harass and stalk others based on some attribute (race, religion, nationality, etc.) because they are in a monitoring position (while others are not) then that would be unfair as well. We need full transparency.

inetknght 4mo ago
Transparency doesn't matter without consequences. Many of the currently ruling governments have demonstrated that already.
- js8 4mo ago
  You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.
  - bluebarbet 4mo ago
    >You're wrong As a rhetorical trick this is generally ineffective.
    - staplers 4mo ago
      Unfortunately not when convincing a large populace..
  - classified 4mo ago
    > it's an important step in maintaining fairness. When there are no consequences, it by definition isn't.
    - js8 4mo ago
      Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness. And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences. It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences. But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)
      - wizzwizz4 4mo ago
        If we're in a position to ask for something, I would rather ask for consequences. We already know what bad stuff is being done: more transparency has marginal utility, under the circumstances.
        spongebobstoes 4mo ago
        transparency is knowledge, and is a prerequisite for accountability
        anigbrowl 4mo ago
        What are you going to seek consequences for, if there isn't sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring? We already know what bad stuff is being done This is a witch-finding mentality: witchcraft exists, I suspect this person of being a witch, therefore burning them at the stake is justified.
        wizzwizz4 4mo ago
        There is sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring, and we can usually rule out other actors circumstantially to give us a suspect – often Facebook, Google, or another "Big Tech" company. There isn't enough transparency to conclusively prove it's them (as opposed to some secret shadowy conspiracy who've concealed all other evidence of their existence – which we do need to rule out, for the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard), but that's what the legal fact-finding process is for.
wqaatwt 4mo ago
> exempting themselves from monitoring Wasn’t that in the Chat Control proposal? i.e. politicians and other important individuals are exempt
- shevy-java 4mo ago
  Of course. The lobbyists don't want to be called bribed people, so they only want to monitor the peons. Slavery 2.0.
  - buellerbueller 4mo ago
    >Slavery 2.0. Chat control is a lot of things, but Slavery 2.0 is not one of them. The hyperbole only hurts your position.
    - staplers 4mo ago
      Slavery isn't a single mechanism, rather a system of many things that keep it all running smoothly
vaylian 4mo ago
> If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. Not everyone is an exhibitionist. Some people thrive when they are very public about their life. Some prefer a much more private life.
- js8 4mo ago
  "Fair" doesn't always mean according to everyone's preferences. I might want to have a full cake but getting a slice is fair.
  - repparw 4mo ago
    some people need "more calories" than others fair != equal
cryptoegorophy 4mo ago
They are 100% abusing until proven otherwise. Naive to think otherwise.
patrickmay 4mo ago
> If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. It might be fair, by some definition, but it would still be wrong. The government shouldn't be monitoring us to the extent required to implement age verification on the 'net.
at_compile_time 4mo ago
>How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? Ah, so except for THE ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM, this is fine. >And if some people are allowed to harass and stalk others based on some attribute (race, religion, nationality, etc.) because they are in a monitoring position (while others are not) then that would be unfair as well. Yes, we wouldn't want racial profiling in our Orwellian hellscape. That would truly put it over the edge.
rootusrootus 4mo ago
> We need full transparency. A couple years ago I would have tended to agree with you, transparency would be a good first step. But then I have recently seen demonstrated that transparency just proves that you do not need to hide corruption as long as a powerful bloc of voters actually agrees with your corrupt position. I think what we really are going to need is consequences defined ahead of time, along with an enforcement mechanism not easily corrupted itself. This is hard. But it is a topic we will hopefully be spending quality time working out over the next few years anyway.
al_borland 4mo ago
> How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? It's not even just about the current people in charge or with access. Who's next? The "trust us" approach doesn't work when trust has already been broken with the people, or in a scenario where the data will change hands to an unknown future administration. The best way to win my trust is to not even want the data in the first place.

inetknght 4mo ago

Transparency doesn't matter without consequences. Many of the currently ruling governments have demonstrated that already.

js8 4mo ago
You're wrong, it still matters. It's the first step, and it's an important step in maintaining fairness.
- bluebarbet 4mo ago
  >You're wrong As a rhetorical trick this is generally ineffective.
  - staplers 4mo ago
    Unfortunately not when convincing a large populace..
- classified 4mo ago
  > it's an important step in maintaining fairness. When there are no consequences, it by definition isn't.
  - js8 4mo ago
    Well there can be no consequences at T=0, but thanks to transparency, consequences can happen, by a collective decision, at T=1. Therefore having transparency is important on its own, it facilitates change towards fairness. And that's what I am saying - we should still ask for transparency even in the environment of no consequences. It's also possible that people are not sure about the lack of consequences, and again, transparency then prevents them doing bad thing even if actually there are no consequences. But of course tautology is tautological by definition. (I am almost 50 and kinda tired of these eristic games on the Internet.)
    - wizzwizz4 4mo ago
      If we're in a position to ask for something, I would rather ask for consequences. We already know what bad stuff is being done: more transparency has marginal utility, under the circumstances.
      - spongebobstoes 4mo ago
        transparency is knowledge, and is a prerequisite for accountability
      - anigbrowl 4mo ago
        What are you going to seek consequences for, if there isn't sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring? We already know what bad stuff is being done This is a witch-finding mentality: witchcraft exists, I suspect this person of being a witch, therefore burning them at the stake is justified.
        wizzwizz4 4mo ago
        There is sufficient transparency to know violations are occurring, and we can usually rule out other actors circumstantially to give us a suspect – often Facebook, Google, or another "Big Tech" company. There isn't enough transparency to conclusively prove it's them (as opposed to some secret shadowy conspiracy who've concealed all other evidence of their existence – which we do need to rule out, for the innocent-until-proven-guilty standard), but that's what the legal fact-finding process is for.

wqaatwt 4mo ago

> exempting themselves from monitoring Wasn’t that in the Chat Control proposal? i.e. politicians and other important individuals are exempt

shevy-java 4mo ago
Of course. The lobbyists don't want to be called bribed people, so they only want to monitor the peons. Slavery 2.0.
- buellerbueller 4mo ago
  >Slavery 2.0. Chat control is a lot of things, but Slavery 2.0 is not one of them. The hyperbole only hurts your position.
  - staplers 4mo ago
    Slavery isn't a single mechanism, rather a system of many things that keep it all running smoothly

vaylian 4mo ago

> If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. Not everyone is an exhibitionist. Some people thrive when they are very public about their life. Some prefer a much more private life.

js8 4mo ago
"Fair" doesn't always mean according to everyone's preferences. I might want to have a full cake but getting a slice is fair.
- repparw 4mo ago
  some people need "more calories" than others fair != equal

cryptoegorophy 4mo ago

They are 100% abusing until proven otherwise. Naive to think otherwise.

patrickmay 4mo ago

> If we are all subject to the same monitoring and there are no exceptions, that would be fair. It might be fair, by some definition, but it would still be wrong. The government shouldn't be monitoring us to the extent required to implement age verification on the 'net.

at_compile_time 4mo ago

>How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? Ah, so except for THE ENTIRE FUCKING PROBLEM, this is fine. >And if some people are allowed to harass and stalk others based on some attribute (race, religion, nationality, etc.) because they are in a monitoring position (while others are not) then that would be unfair as well. Yes, we wouldn't want racial profiling in our Orwellian hellscape. That would truly put it over the edge.

rootusrootus 4mo ago

> We need full transparency. A couple years ago I would have tended to agree with you, transparency would be a good first step. But then I have recently seen demonstrated that transparency just proves that you do not need to hide corruption as long as a powerful bloc of voters actually agrees with your corrupt position. I think what we really are going to need is consequences defined ahead of time, along with an enforcement mechanism not easily corrupted itself. This is hard. But it is a topic we will hopefully be spending quality time working out over the next few years anyway.

al_borland 4mo ago

> How do we know that the ruling/governing class is not abusing these monitoring systems and exempting themselves from monitoring? It's not even just about the current people in charge or with access. Who's next? The "trust us" approach doesn't work when trust has already been broken with the people, or in a scenario where the data will change hands to an unknown future administration. The best way to win my trust is to not even want the data in the first place.