11 ms·
A mass, non-algorithmic, deep-dive approach is simply not economically feasible, so I don't agree that everyone should expect to come under scrutiny. The approa
by jfoster 12y ago
A mass, non-algorithmic, deep-dive approach is simply not economically feasible, so I don't agree that everyone should expect to come under scrutiny. The approach taken has to be targeted. That's not to say that there won't be completely innocent people who get scrutinized, but to me it seems that the average non-criminal person would be quite correct in assuming that the likelihood of ending up scrutinized by humans is minuscule.
I probably should have mentioned in my original comment that looking at it this way is purely self-interested. In reality, perhaps there are non-average attributes (eg. particular religions) which might see clusters of innocent people scrutinized. People outside those clusters may or may not take issue with that. It depends on their values. I don't mean to suggest that one opinion or the other on this is "correct", just that there might be rational (albeit self-interested) views on both sides of the argument.
- otakucode 12y ago>so I don't agree that everyone should expect to come under scrutiny I think we're just using the word 'scrutiny' differently. I count extensive computational analysis of behavior patterns to be scrutiny. My worries are not that a human being will listen to my calls, read my emails, etc. My worries are that a piece of software will do it. The piece of software knows exactly and precisely whether I deviate from the norm and it would have no tolerance whatever for such deviation. Yes, we could pretty much completely guarantee maintenance of the status quo with automated analysis and really very civilized and quiet means of disrupting communication. It would prevent revolutions, riots, terrorism, and all sorts of negative things. But it would also doom everyone to a quiet tyranny and completely prevent any improvements as well as detriments.