5 ms·

The picture you've painted isn't comforting at all. It's absolutely terrifying. You're drawing these comparisons against communication edge cases (blackmail and

by rmxt 11y ago

The picture you've painted isn't comforting at all. It's absolutely terrifying. You're drawing these comparisons against communication edge cases (blackmail and a descent into anarchy), rather than realizing that the vast, vast, majority of conversations are banal. Banality notwithstanding, that doesn't mean it's okay for them all to be sucked up and stored forever. Common people keep their FB and Instagram set to private for a reason: because they don't want strangers viewing their semi-public, banal information. And you want to extrapolate out FB and Instagram (small slices of life) to everyone's entire online presence, forever? That's both patronizing, to make that assumption for other people, and absurd. Pompeii is great for archaeologists, but given the opportunity, I bet those people would have opted to leave behind a crafted and consented-to image, rather than having their laundry aired out for all to see for eternity.

logicallee 11y ago
I don't think the rule of law is an edge case. Blackmail happens every day. You make a really interesting point with this: >given the opportunity, I bet those people would have opted to leave behind a crafted and consented-to image, rather than having their laundry aired out for all to see for eternity. But I wonder: is a well-crafted idyllic image of history worth a limited understanding of humanity as a result? I think that in the startup world we can understand that there are often two stories: one is a marketing story; but another is the sad reality of the hustle early-on. Later once companies have succeeded, it is all right (I think) to admit to the hustle. Another example was that surely the founders of America would not have wanted to be remembered as tyrannical slave-owners. But while we present the noble story of the enlightenment and ideals of freedom ("all men are created equal"), at an advanced level we learn that they did not practice this literally. Does it take away? We remember their achievements and progress, and the story they wanted to leave behind. Not their foibles. Orson Welles got his acting start in theater in London, lying and saying he was a well-known actor in the United States. He was a complete rookie. Though the production manager had his doubts about the story, he gave Welles a shot. How does the existence and knowledge of this fact take away from the story of Orson Welles, creator of Citizen Kane which is considered by many to be the greatest work of cinema in existence? Welles is an inspiration to many. So are startup founders who have to hustle. I think being brutally honest about humanity gets us farther than not having this information at all. Perhaps it would only concern people at the University doctoral level, but I don't think the existence itself of this information is a net loss for humanity. I also have personal theories about good and doing the right thing, and I'd hope either that a few hundred years from now everyone agrees with me; or that I learn enough about humanity to improve my own understanding by the time I die. When I learn new facts, I update my understanding. So thanks for your comment, but I do not find it convincing and am leaving my comment up.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > So thanks for your comment, but I do not find it convincing and am leaving my comment up. What would convince you? How bad a transgression would you need before you would say: "Hey, wait a moment, that's not what I had in mind when I sanctioned this!".
  - logicallee 11y ago
    Firstly, I didn't sanction it.* They have no right to do this and should vehemently deny it. Anything to the contrary is deeply illegal (by the supreme court of the land), and needs to be met with sanctions and repercussions, up to and including dismantling the NSA. Any level of transgression would make me take affirmative steps in this direction. * by the way I'd avoid using the verb 'sanction' ever as it means both punish/discipline ('they were sanctioned by the court') or it means approve of ('the plan was sanctioned by the court') with just a grammatical hair of difference. to be clear, here, like you I mean the latter, 'approve of'.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      It is illegal whether or not they acknowledge it. Much as you may dislike it you are - in my opinion - actively approving this by writing what you did above. Either that or I completely fail to understand your position.
      - logicallee 11y ago
        yes, you've failed to understand my position.
- rmxt 11y ago
  I think the fact that modern historiography can present both the benevolent and the dubious sides of America's founders' histories without the use of what you are proposing is a testament to mass surveillance's needlessness. We don't have a limited understanding of humanity for the past 2000 years, we have a pretty darn good one, and an even better one for the past 500 years. Do you sincerely believe that the best way to advance humanity in the future, while respecting the well-being of people living today, is to suck every last drop of everyone's communications into a storage pool, let some unknown entity run unknown analyses on it, towards unknown ends, at unknown (direct and indirect) costs? Ultimately, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Frankly, based on your writing, it seems like you think you would be fit to do so... > I also have personal theories about good and doing the right thing, and I'd hope either that a few hundred years from now everyone agrees with me; or that I learn enough about humanity to improve my own understanding by the time I die. Everyone has their personal theories about doing good, but not everyone believes that everyone else needs to be watched 24/7 by other humans in order to keep performing that good. EDIT: I am not trying to silence your opinion or suggest that you take it down. I appreciate countervailing opinions. I do, however, have a hard time appreciating the apparent smugness and ease with which you suggest that everyone should eventually come to the same conclusions as you, because (obviously) that (mass surveillance as a historical artifact, and as a present-day crime deterrent) would benefit humanity.

by rmxt 11y ago

logicallee 11y ago

I don't think the rule of law is an edge case. Blackmail happens every day. You make a really interesting point with this: >given the opportunity, I bet those people would have opted to leave behind a crafted and consented-to image, rather than having their laundry aired out for all to see for eternity. But I wonder: is a well-crafted idyllic image of history worth a limited understanding of humanity as a result? I think that in the startup world we can understand that there are often two stories: one is a marketing story; but another is the sad reality of the hustle early-on. Later once companies have succeeded, it is all right (I think) to admit to the hustle. Another example was that surely the founders of America would not have wanted to be remembered as tyrannical slave-owners. But while we present the noble story of the enlightenment and ideals of freedom ("all men are created equal"), at an advanced level we learn that they did not practice this literally. Does it take away? We remember their achievements and progress, and the story they wanted to leave behind. Not their foibles. Orson Welles got his acting start in theater in London, lying and saying he was a well-known actor in the United States. He was a complete rookie. Though the production manager had his doubts about the story, he gave Welles a shot. How does the existence and knowledge of this fact take away from the story of Orson Welles, creator of Citizen Kane which is considered by many to be the greatest work of cinema in existence? Welles is an inspiration to many. So are startup founders who have to hustle. I think being brutally honest about humanity gets us farther than not having this information at all. Perhaps it would only concern people at the University doctoral level, but I don't think the existence itself of this information is a net loss for humanity. I also have personal theories about good and doing the right thing, and I'd hope either that a few hundred years from now everyone agrees with me; or that I learn enough about humanity to improve my own understanding by the time I die. When I learn new facts, I update my understanding. So thanks for your comment, but I do not find it convincing and am leaving my comment up.

jacquesm 11y ago
> So thanks for your comment, but I do not find it convincing and am leaving my comment up. What would convince you? How bad a transgression would you need before you would say: "Hey, wait a moment, that's not what I had in mind when I sanctioned this!".
- logicallee 11y ago
  Firstly, I didn't sanction it.* They have no right to do this and should vehemently deny it. Anything to the contrary is deeply illegal (by the supreme court of the land), and needs to be met with sanctions and repercussions, up to and including dismantling the NSA. Any level of transgression would make me take affirmative steps in this direction. * by the way I'd avoid using the verb 'sanction' ever as it means both punish/discipline ('they were sanctioned by the court') or it means approve of ('the plan was sanctioned by the court') with just a grammatical hair of difference. to be clear, here, like you I mean the latter, 'approve of'.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It is illegal whether or not they acknowledge it. Much as you may dislike it you are - in my opinion - actively approving this by writing what you did above. Either that or I completely fail to understand your position.
    - logicallee 11y ago
      yes, you've failed to understand my position.
rmxt 11y ago
I think the fact that modern historiography can present both the benevolent and the dubious sides of America's founders' histories without the use of what you are proposing is a testament to mass surveillance's needlessness. We don't have a limited understanding of humanity for the past 2000 years, we have a pretty darn good one, and an even better one for the past 500 years. Do you sincerely believe that the best way to advance humanity in the future, while respecting the well-being of people living today, is to suck every last drop of everyone's communications into a storage pool, let some unknown entity run unknown analyses on it, towards unknown ends, at unknown (direct and indirect) costs? Ultimately, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Frankly, based on your writing, it seems like you think you would be fit to do so... > I also have personal theories about good and doing the right thing, and I'd hope either that a few hundred years from now everyone agrees with me; or that I learn enough about humanity to improve my own understanding by the time I die. Everyone has their personal theories about doing good, but not everyone believes that everyone else needs to be watched 24/7 by other humans in order to keep performing that good. EDIT: I am not trying to silence your opinion or suggest that you take it down. I appreciate countervailing opinions. I do, however, have a hard time appreciating the apparent smugness and ease with which you suggest that everyone should eventually come to the same conclusions as you, because (obviously) that (mass surveillance as a historical artifact, and as a present-day crime deterrent) would benefit humanity.