4 ms·

I think everyone agrees. Where the disagreement lies is if this is how the technology is actually used, and the answer seems to be: no. Regardless, even if the

I think everyone agrees. Where the disagreement lies is if this is how the technology is actually used, and the answer seems to be: no. Regardless, even if the technology was used currently purely for good, when you’re “pro surveillance” you’re actually arguing it will always be used for good, even in some hypothetical future with hypothetical politics. That’s a very hard sell.

bko 3mo ago
I'm pro technology. Being pro something does not mean I'm arguing it will always be used for good. What kind of standard is that?
- preg_match 3mo ago
  I'm pro technology too, but being pro surveillance is orthogonal to being pro technology. Surveillance is an application of technology, not technology itself. It's the difference between being pro-science and being pro-dropping-the-atomic-bomb. The atomic bomb suffers the same problem, too. It only works if used for "good", which... I mean, let's be real. People don't appreciate the actual argument against surveillance. It's not that it's bad, or evil. It's that it's fundamentally infrastructure which will be used against innocent people. We have seen surveillance employed to the maximum degree in every totalitarian society which has ever existed. If we're going based purely off the track record, it doesn't look good. Ultimately it's all risk analysis. Is preventing, like, a car theft or something worth the risk of Nazi Germany x10? Probably not I'd say. And you might say, well, that's hyperbolic. But given a long enough timescale, I don't think it is. I mean, imagine how many more Jews could have been killed had Hitler had access to Flock. And yes, Hitler was an anomaly. But anomalies happen if you wait long enough. We'd have to be foolish to think there won't be a second Hitler. Not that we even need one - we're already seeing citizens crushed under the surveillance apparatus in the US. Today. Right now. With our "just a little bit" authoritarian government.

bko 3mo ago

I'm pro technology. Being pro something does not mean I'm arguing it will always be used for good. What kind of standard is that?

preg_match 3mo ago
I'm pro technology too, but being pro surveillance is orthogonal to being pro technology. Surveillance is an application of technology, not technology itself. It's the difference between being pro-science and being pro-dropping-the-atomic-bomb. The atomic bomb suffers the same problem, too. It only works if used for "good", which... I mean, let's be real. People don't appreciate the actual argument against surveillance. It's not that it's bad, or evil. It's that it's fundamentally infrastructure which will be used against innocent people. We have seen surveillance employed to the maximum degree in every totalitarian society which has ever existed. If we're going based purely off the track record, it doesn't look good. Ultimately it's all risk analysis. Is preventing, like, a car theft or something worth the risk of Nazi Germany x10? Probably not I'd say. And you might say, well, that's hyperbolic. But given a long enough timescale, I don't think it is. I mean, imagine how many more Jews could have been killed had Hitler had access to Flock. And yes, Hitler was an anomaly. But anomalies happen if you wait long enough. We'd have to be foolish to think there won't be a second Hitler. Not that we even need one - we're already seeing citizens crushed under the surveillance apparatus in the US. Today. Right now. With our "just a little bit" authoritarian government.