3 ms·

Meh, it's an inevitable effect of the lowering cost of cameras and image processing. In a few years we will have 'social' data sharing networks (analogous to th

by roel_v 12y ago

Meh, it's an inevitable effect of the lowering cost of cameras and image processing. In a few years we will have 'social' data sharing networks (analogous to the blockchain) that will share results of analyses of all sorts of cameras worn by regular people every day and everywhere they go, basically a 'decentralized' pervasive monitoring system, fed by cameras everywhere - shops, car dashboards, phones, on private property, ... Think Facebook tagging is creepy, just wait until you get home from work and find a website with 50 pictures of you during the day in all places you were... Just a few people who contribute footage will be enough to map the vast majority of people. Imagine 10 people walking around in a shopping mall with a Google Glass and a dashcam; with enough processing power, that would be enough to map the locations of thousands of people per day. I used to care, years ago - but there is no escaping it. The real question is how can we deal with such pervasive monitoring? I don't think anyone has a real answer, or has even tried to answer it (note that I'm not talking about pervasive monitoring by just one actor like the state, since what we will experience will be monitoring of all, by all).

carapace 12y ago
Well, think about Star Trek --let me finish!-- the computer on the Enterprise always knew where everybody was and it didn't concern anybody unduly. As ubiquitous surveillance becomes pervasive we are confronted with the task of growing into a humane and healthy world polity.
- krapp 12y ago
  It's also worth remembering, no one on board the Enterprise was a member of the public, per se. The Federation is a quasi-military organization, and I don't think anyone wouldn't expect the military, or even a defense contractor or high-tech lab, to at least make sure they know where personnel are at all times ... and in that light, the surveillance on the Enterprise seemed almost lax. In one episode, crew and officers were being transported while they slept to a pocket dimension and having their organs rearranged by sinister aliens. You would think at the very least, that would set off some alarms. But the computer never seems to keep track of people's whereabouts unless someone asks (for drama's sake, obviously, but still) or even that the first officer apparently was missing a kidney they had only twelve hours ago. I don't remember getting a sense that the computer was actively keeping track on everyone's position, and constantly recording their movements, keystrokes and conversations.
  - carapace 12y ago
    You're right, of course, but as you say a lot of what we see in the show is for the sake of the drama. I think there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to our technology enabling ubiquitous surveillance: How can you be sure that everyone is obeying policy (around how to use the collected info) unless you have a surveillance system to watch them in the first place? It doesn't matter what we think the policy is if we can't control the "root" of the system, and we can't be sure we control the "root" without being able to check on people (ourselves) to make sure they haven't somehow wrested control from us. "Trusting trust" gets even more crucial once nanotech starts to hit. I don't like it but as far as my analysis has proceeded I can only imagine a humane-but-totalistic system being workable, and the best most widely-known image of such is (I think) Star Trek. ;-)
    - krapp 12y ago
      I'm not entirely sure I agree with the premise that ubiquitous surveillance is unavoidable and unstoppable. To me, that attitude seems half like a cynical cop-out and half cyberpunk wish-fulfillment. No infrastructure which requires as much complexity and cost and effort as that does, is immune to political, economic or societal forces. Already, you can begin to see pushback from other (many themselves) government and some companies like Apple, who both may be genuinely bothered by government intrusion and see "privacy" as a near-long-term necessity for selling products domestically but more importantly globally. It's true that Facebook is creepy, but it's also true that people have known that Facebook is creepy for years now and young people are leaving in droves. Of course, nearly ubiquitous surveillance would be much more likely. Probably not all of our worst nightmares, but more than enough. I personally believe (I even wrote a terrible paper about it that will never see the light of day) that the biggest and most pervasive threat to freedom in regards to privacy will lie in the intersection of (not strong but good enough) AI, social media, and the internet of things. Essentially, we're coming to a point at which our devices will be designed to interact with us emotionally, as well as socially, and as a result people will be trained to form deep emotional relationships with products as well as people. Imagine having a deep intellectual conversation with someone online, only that someone is a refrigerator, or a car. Imagine most of the friends you've grown up with are products, because most of your interaction is online. Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't, but almost certainly it won't happen the way we currently predict. The future right after the moon landings isn't the one anyone would have predicted. We were supposed to be drinking Coca-Colas on Mars by now. Although if it did happen, then i'm still not entirely certain the 'humane-but-totalistic' model necessarily works. In theory, yes, but in practice, if everyone knew everything about everyone else, this wouldn't necessarily balance power between the weak and the strong (and imbalance which exists in the real work, but not Star Trek) but would enable the strong to more easily dominate the weak. Because such systems can't be perfect, there must always be ways to exploit information asymmetry. Governments, corporations and criminals will always be more able to rig the system than will the common person. I like Star Trek, but because it presents a Utopian ideal, i'm skeptical of using it as a springboard for describing actual potential future societies, because humans just don't work that way. Every other species on in the franchise was more human than the humans (purposely, because they were there to be mirrors on the 'unevolved' aspects of human nature.)

by roel_v 12y ago

carapace 12y ago

Well, think about Star Trek --let me finish!-- the computer on the Enterprise always knew where everybody was and it didn't concern anybody unduly. As ubiquitous surveillance becomes pervasive we are confronted with the task of growing into a humane and healthy world polity.

krapp 12y ago
It's also worth remembering, no one on board the Enterprise was a member of the public, per se. The Federation is a quasi-military organization, and I don't think anyone wouldn't expect the military, or even a defense contractor or high-tech lab, to at least make sure they know where personnel are at all times ... and in that light, the surveillance on the Enterprise seemed almost lax. In one episode, crew and officers were being transported while they slept to a pocket dimension and having their organs rearranged by sinister aliens. You would think at the very least, that would set off some alarms. But the computer never seems to keep track of people's whereabouts unless someone asks (for drama's sake, obviously, but still) or even that the first officer apparently was missing a kidney they had only twelve hours ago. I don't remember getting a sense that the computer was actively keeping track on everyone's position, and constantly recording their movements, keystrokes and conversations.
- carapace 12y ago
  You're right, of course, but as you say a lot of what we see in the show is for the sake of the drama. I think there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to our technology enabling ubiquitous surveillance: How can you be sure that everyone is obeying policy (around how to use the collected info) unless you have a surveillance system to watch them in the first place? It doesn't matter what we think the policy is if we can't control the "root" of the system, and we can't be sure we control the "root" without being able to check on people (ourselves) to make sure they haven't somehow wrested control from us. "Trusting trust" gets even more crucial once nanotech starts to hit. I don't like it but as far as my analysis has proceeded I can only imagine a humane-but-totalistic system being workable, and the best most widely-known image of such is (I think) Star Trek. ;-)
  - krapp 12y ago
    I'm not entirely sure I agree with the premise that ubiquitous surveillance is unavoidable and unstoppable. To me, that attitude seems half like a cynical cop-out and half cyberpunk wish-fulfillment. No infrastructure which requires as much complexity and cost and effort as that does, is immune to political, economic or societal forces. Already, you can begin to see pushback from other (many themselves) government and some companies like Apple, who both may be genuinely bothered by government intrusion and see "privacy" as a near-long-term necessity for selling products domestically but more importantly globally. It's true that Facebook is creepy, but it's also true that people have known that Facebook is creepy for years now and young people are leaving in droves. Of course, nearly ubiquitous surveillance would be much more likely. Probably not all of our worst nightmares, but more than enough. I personally believe (I even wrote a terrible paper about it that will never see the light of day) that the biggest and most pervasive threat to freedom in regards to privacy will lie in the intersection of (not strong but good enough) AI, social media, and the internet of things. Essentially, we're coming to a point at which our devices will be designed to interact with us emotionally, as well as socially, and as a result people will be trained to form deep emotional relationships with products as well as people. Imagine having a deep intellectual conversation with someone online, only that someone is a refrigerator, or a car. Imagine most of the friends you've grown up with are products, because most of your interaction is online. Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't, but almost certainly it won't happen the way we currently predict. The future right after the moon landings isn't the one anyone would have predicted. We were supposed to be drinking Coca-Colas on Mars by now. Although if it did happen, then i'm still not entirely certain the 'humane-but-totalistic' model necessarily works. In theory, yes, but in practice, if everyone knew everything about everyone else, this wouldn't necessarily balance power between the weak and the strong (and imbalance which exists in the real work, but not Star Trek) but would enable the strong to more easily dominate the weak. Because such systems can't be perfect, there must always be ways to exploit information asymmetry. Governments, corporations and criminals will always be more able to rig the system than will the common person. I like Star Trek, but because it presents a Utopian ideal, i'm skeptical of using it as a springboard for describing actual potential future societies, because humans just don't work that way. Every other species on in the franchise was more human than the humans (purposely, because they were there to be mirrors on the 'unevolved' aspects of human nature.)