71–80 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people die from choking on food every year in the USA than die from terrorism AND police.
but most of those are older then 74yo and it is not really someone else that is killing you on purpose... like the other 2 cases
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but most of those are older then 74yo and it is not really someone else that is killing you on purpose... like the other 2 cases
What if terrorists blow up a retirement community? Are we just not supposed to care ‘cause they old?
Item: Auto-autos (self-driving cars) and the accompanying infrastructure will be a defacto ubiquitous surveillance system. (Triangulation of gunshots in realtime, etc.) On the one hand we eliminate privacy, on the other we can eliminate crime. I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. - - - - As a pulled-in-the-wool tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoiac the sad thing about Snowden was that the poor kid had to fl…
Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I suspect that it is.
Either way, those of us against surveillance will eventually resort to more active measures as surveillance continues to increase, which we're already seeing with things like AdNauseum. Surveillance won't "win"; it will be a constant battle that becomes more and more expensive for the watchers in terms of development time, infrastructure maintenance, replacement of damaged and outdated equipment, lost employee morale, and lost public trust. In a world of 7 billion people, we simply can't afford to feed everyone, solve the issue of climate change, manage the global economy in a way that avoids war, and maintain an effective global surveillance state in the face of active resistance. Sure, there will be pockets that are highly monitored (London/NYC/etc), but you don't have to enter those areas.
To be clear, anti-surveillance won't "win" either. This is a back-and-forth game that never ends, that of control and order versus freedom and chaos. Human nature ensures that it remains a frozen conflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people die from choking on food every year in the USA than die from terrorism AND police.
Stop giving ideas to the American war barons! One of these mornings we'll awake to "Operation Freedom Choke: Liberty in your throat".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people die from choking on food every year in the USA than die from terrorism AND police.
This is a silly comparison. Terrorist can kill 30 people in one attack or even break down a whole building with a bomb. When did 30 people choke by one piece of food? And we don't have another 911 may because of mass surveillance. Shall we try removing the surveillance to see whether terrorist attack increases?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if terrorists blow up a retirement community? Are we just not supposed to care ‘cause they old?
not saying that, but someone close to his life expectancy age chocking on his food, that can almost be considered a natural cause of death, no?
Item: Auto-autos (self-driving cars) and the accompanying infrastructure will be a defacto ubiquitous surveillance system. (Triangulation of gunshots in realtime, etc.) On the one hand we eliminate privacy, on the other we can eliminate crime. I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. - - - - As a pulled-in-the-wool tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoiac the sad thing about Snowden was that the poor kid had to fl…
> We are not going to rollback surveillance. The folks that want to roll it back are so naive that they must be monitored by the rest of us for their own safety and ours. I wish it weren't so but there it is. Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I suspect that it is. Either way, those of us against surveillance will eventually resort to more active measures as surveillance continues to increase, which we're already…
> Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I suspect that it is.
No, it's not. Not even a little. I am "as serious as a heart attack".
Someone is going to occupy the "God Room". It can be good(-ish) guys or bad(-ish) guys but it can't be nobody.
The NSA are doing their (difficult and necessary) jobs.
> those of us against surveillance
...only have to fuck up once. Make one mistake and you're nicked mate.
People trying to avoid surveillance leave holes in the dataflow that pinpoint them.
> it will be a constant battle that becomes more and more expensive for the watchers
Hardly. We see it becoming exponentially cheaper in front of our eyes. Given two exponential processes in a race, the one that's faster pulls ahead exponentially. (And whole new technologies open up new methods, e.g. terahertz scanners that can read mail without touching it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation )
Nevermind that the vast majority of people simply do not care.
You really think "Anonymous" is getting better at what they do? Maybe that's why we don't hear about them much anymore? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Forgive the sarcasm, but I hope I'm making my point?
Thinking that the "Goonies" are going to beat the NSA is so foolish that anyone who believes it is dangerously naive. Especially because the NSA is on your side. The NSA are the good guys! (By Earth standards.)
Let me ask you this: would you give up your right to privacy to prevent e.g. kragen's friend's rape by the police? I don't know about you but I would live on live webcam the rest of my life gladly if it could prevent even half of e.g. Amber Alerts (child kidnapping.)
That's the trade-off: Privacy for massively reduced crime.
My point is that the Ubiquitous Surveillance system must be recursive to prevent it's own abuses (or we will wind up with techno-dictatorship.) That's all.
Cf. Peelian principles
> In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
> In a world of 7 billion people, we simply can't afford to feed everyone, solve the issue of climate change, manage the global economy in a way that avoids war, and maintain an effective global surveillance state in the face of active resistance.
Actually we can. Bucky Fuller calculated that we could fix all our problems for about 25 billion dollars. We literally had all the answers by the mid-70's but no one fucking listens.
Anyhow, the flow of information increases wealth, ubiquitous surveillance is a net gain. We will get the "UbiSurv" capabilities as a side effect of economic development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are not going to rollback surveillance. The folks that want to roll it back are so naive that they must be monitored by the rest of us for their own safety and ours. I wish it weren't so but there it is. Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I suspect that it is. Either way, those of us against surveillance will eventually resort to more active measures as surveillance continues to increase, which we're already…
> > The folks that want to roll it back are so naive that they must be monitored by the rest of us for their own safety and ours. > Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I suspect that it is. No, it's not. Not even a little. I am "as serious as a heart attack". Someone is going to occupy the "God Room". It can be good(-ish) guys or bad(-ish) guys but it can't be nobody . The NSA are doing their (difficult and necessa…
It's not illegal to be against surveillance. Nothing I can be "nicked" for. No drugs, nothing illegal. I am a hard target unless your benevolent watchers want to break the law and plant something on me. And there's plenty of others like me.
> People trying to avoid surveillance leave holes in the dataflow that pinpoint them.
Yes, that's why I specifically mentioned "active" measures and Ad Nauseum. When surveillance becomes pervasive, you change your strategy. The idea is to become "human chaff". Light up all the keywords, all the dashboards. Make yourself incredibly visible, ideally in a way that blends with the identities of others so they aren't even sure who you are. And most importantly, make yourself both interesting and expensive to target. This provides cover so the people doing the important work on crypto, distributed encrypted comms, etc can go on unbothered. And it's perfectly legal.
> My point is that the Ubiquitous Surveillance system must be recursive to prevent it's own abuses (or we will wind up with techno-dictatorship.) That's all.
Better hope that you're wrong. If your "exponential" surveillance were successful (it won't be), it would inevitably draw in more and more people who seek power for power's sake. The systems will eventually become corrupted, even if it takes decades. The techno-dictatorship will happen. And then, fortunately, it will eventually collapse under its own weight like all dictatorships do, after oppressing and killing countless innocents. (The model for this is the former GDR, which was the most successful surveillance and control state known to man.)
The only way your benevolent surveillance state could possibly work is the emergence of a general AI that takes over our governance systems and replaces human control. I'm not optimistic about this happening any time soon, and as there's no guarantee that such an AI would even care about us, I'm not too keen on seeing this happen in my lifetime.
You are making the same mistake that nearly all starry-eyed futurists do. Human nature rules the development and use of technology, not the other way around. We could have walked on Mars by now, but we haven't. The Internet could have brought about world peace and free global exchange of ideas, but instead we're slowly entering a new cold war. There's a reason for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's worth it to you to spend 100's of billions to stop 30 hypothetical deaths? Ok. You're allowed to have that opinion. I'll vote against it every chance I get.
30 hypothetical death is for 1 terrorist attack. Why would terrorists only attack once?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > The folks that want to roll it back are so naive that they must be monitored by the rest of us for their own safety and ours. > Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not? I suspect that it is. No, it's not. Not even a little. I am "as serious as a heart attack". Someone is going to occupy the "God Room". It can be good(-ish) guys or bad(-ish) guys but it can't be nobody . The NSA are doing their (difficult and necessa…
> ...only have to fuck up once. Make one mistake and you're nicked mate. It's not illegal to be against surveillance. Nothing I can be "nicked" for. No drugs, nothing illegal. I am a hard target unless your benevolent watchers want to break the law and plant something on me. And there's plenty of others like me. > People trying to avoid surveillance leave holes in the dataflow that pinpoint them. Yes, that's why I sp…
> Human nature rules the development and use of technology, not the other way around.
No, I believe that, I just have different beliefs about human nature than you do.
If climate doesn't clobber us I'm pretty sure we'll come down on the side of governmental transparency and the rule of law. But only time will tell, eh?