4 ms·

Given our (somewhat irrational) risk-aversion towards things like terrorism, the success of this sort of tech seems pretty much inevitable. The stable state we

Given our (somewhat irrational) risk-aversion towards things like terrorism, the success of this sort of tech seems pretty much inevitable. The stable state we'll probably reach is a more extreme version of what Karp mentions: next to zero privacy, but also high levels of transparency into the operations of our authorities, and, as a result of both, much more cultural acceptance of "deviancy". Their civil liberties controls seem like a fairly sane attempt to smooth out the transition to that sort of society (but admittedly of unclear effectiveness). They're trying to avoid a detour into a totalitarian police state while our laws and cultural norms catch up with the reality of our growing data collection and data mining capabilities. Edit: To clarify the logic of my first sentence above: if we keep voting out elected officials who fail to stop terrorist attacks (which are almost always disproportionately sensational compared to their actual death tolls), we're basically evolving our set of politicians into people who will stop at nothing to prevent them.

Zigurd 13y ago
That's a dreadful vision. I expect a lot of people got into technology because it's "clean." There little chance of harming people or the environment with what you do. It will be interesting to see if people become disgusted by technology, in general.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  Or at least, we've managed to push the unclean parts of it into places far away where we don't have to personally see it -- assembly lines in China, coltan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan) mines in the Congo, etc. It's not like the old days of, say, the garment business, where the abuse was happening right in New York City for everyone to see (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fir...). It's been shuffled off to places where customers and cameras can't go. This makes it easier to pretend to ourselves that what we do is not tied up with the human costs in those places. It's easy to not think about something you never see.
- paulbaumgart 13y ago
  There would be some benefits. For example, if it became trivial to detect that a person was a user of illegal drugs, we'd very quickly change our drug laws to something more congruent with reality. Instead, we are in a situation where our drug laws are only tolerated because they're completely financially unrealistic to enforce the way they're written. That leads to selective enforcement, which gives authorities way too much discretionary power.
joering2 13y ago
> but also high levels of transparency into the operations of our authorities You are kidding yourself. How about zero privacy for citizens and no transparency and not accountability for government?? I could fall under why they don't share it with me and you, civilians, but they don't even share it with congressmen, judges and anyone else in-between. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/asked-if-justice-department-is-spying-on-congress-holder-refuses-to-answer/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/asked-if-justice-department-is-sp... (bit old) http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57423389-10391695/governments-answer-to-fast-and-furious-records-requests-blank-pages/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57423389-10391695/gove... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eric+holder+refuses http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eric+holder+refu...
- paulbaumgart 13y ago
  Yeah, that's part of the bumpy transition. But, just like other totalitarian power schemes, it's inherently unstable.
Sven7 13y ago
"cultural acceptance of deviancy" Really? So at the height of the next privacy/NSA/Snowden debates, I guess, I should expect society to be vigorously defending the privacy rights of the next Anthony Wiener. Yup I am sure that day will come. Sounds like parent doesn't get much human contact.
- paulbaumgart 13y ago
  What I mean is that we'll come to accept the fact that things like sexting are really common, and we just won't treat it like a big deal anymore. (Not a fan of the sarcasm and ad hominem, by the way.)
  - Sven7 13y ago
    So if you are saying in future, Anthony Weiners will get elected, then again I have to disagree with you. Thanks to human nature, I see the exact opposite happening with our leaders. And to your main point, the tech is inevitable cause its finally viable. As to its success, I'm highly doubtful for two reasons- 1) There is a cost to transparency - both to individuals and organizations. Once the cost is felt, information will stop flowing as freely as it does today. 2) Just because there is a machine that can digest unlimited information and produce a list of threats doesn't mean unlimited resources exists to address all of them, not to mention address them effectively. Whether it was the boston bombings or the wall street meltdown both events happened despite information being available. Just as economics in the end, reduced nuclear arsenals economics will limit the size and scope of these machines. I really don't see us reaching any stable state with zero privacy and high transparency levels. Though I can see why a Zuckerberg, Schmidt or Karp might see that. It aligns well with what they do.

Zigurd 13y ago

That's a dreadful vision. I expect a lot of people got into technology because it's "clean." There little chance of harming people or the environment with what you do. It will be interesting to see if people become disgusted by technology, in general.

smacktoward 13y ago
Or at least, we've managed to push the unclean parts of it into places far away where we don't have to personally see it -- assembly lines in China, coltan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan) mines in the Congo, etc. It's not like the old days of, say, the garment business, where the abuse was happening right in New York City for everyone to see (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fir...). It's been shuffled off to places where customers and cameras can't go. This makes it easier to pretend to ourselves that what we do is not tied up with the human costs in those places. It's easy to not think about something you never see.
paulbaumgart 13y ago
There would be some benefits. For example, if it became trivial to detect that a person was a user of illegal drugs, we'd very quickly change our drug laws to something more congruent with reality. Instead, we are in a situation where our drug laws are only tolerated because they're completely financially unrealistic to enforce the way they're written. That leads to selective enforcement, which gives authorities way too much discretionary power.

joering2 13y ago

> but also high levels of transparency into the operations of our authorities You are kidding yourself. How about zero privacy for citizens and no transparency and not accountability for government?? I could fall under why they don't share it with me and you, civilians, but they don't even share it with congressmen, judges and anyone else in-between. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/asked-if-justice-department-is-spying-on-congress-holder-refuses-to-answer/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/asked-if-justice-department-is-sp... (bit old) http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57423389-10391695/governments-answer-to-fast-and-furious-records-requests-blank-pages/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57423389-10391695/gove... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eric+holder+refuses http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eric+holder+refu...

paulbaumgart 13y ago
Yeah, that's part of the bumpy transition. But, just like other totalitarian power schemes, it's inherently unstable.

Sven7 13y ago

"cultural acceptance of deviancy" Really? So at the height of the next privacy/NSA/Snowden debates, I guess, I should expect society to be vigorously defending the privacy rights of the next Anthony Wiener. Yup I am sure that day will come. Sounds like parent doesn't get much human contact.

paulbaumgart 13y ago
What I mean is that we'll come to accept the fact that things like sexting are really common, and we just won't treat it like a big deal anymore. (Not a fan of the sarcasm and ad hominem, by the way.)
- Sven7 13y ago
  So if you are saying in future, Anthony Weiners will get elected, then again I have to disagree with you. Thanks to human nature, I see the exact opposite happening with our leaders. And to your main point, the tech is inevitable cause its finally viable. As to its success, I'm highly doubtful for two reasons- 1) There is a cost to transparency - both to individuals and organizations. Once the cost is felt, information will stop flowing as freely as it does today. 2) Just because there is a machine that can digest unlimited information and produce a list of threats doesn't mean unlimited resources exists to address all of them, not to mention address them effectively. Whether it was the boston bombings or the wall street meltdown both events happened despite information being available. Just as economics in the end, reduced nuclear arsenals economics will limit the size and scope of these machines. I really don't see us reaching any stable state with zero privacy and high transparency levels. Though I can see why a Zuckerberg, Schmidt or Karp might see that. It aligns well with what they do.