Persistent Surveillance

[Michael Hardner]

What's really crazy is that the notion that souveillance, aiming the telescreens back at the watchers, is a radical and in some minds an even criminal idea.

If public viewing data isn't owned by the watchers, then the watchers could be watched. When you're in public, you're open to being seen. What if CCTV and satellite images weren't owned by the watchers but by everyone ?

[Moonlight Graham]

But there are enough tangible benefits to this that the technology will start to happen... somewhere.

Not if people don't want it to. There's benefits and downsides.

And eventually the costs of the technology will drop to the point where private concerns will be able to do this and own the information.

Again, not if there's a law banning or restricting its use. The reason private drones fly around surveilling mostly whatever they want is because we choose to allow it.

[Michael Hardner]

From the podcast- there was 25% opposition to the plan to do it.

Also you can't effectively legislate against popular and pervasive technology. See radar detectors.

[Shady]

I don't see any problem with it. If you're out in public, you have no expectation of privacy in this regard. It's tantamount to somebody standing on the street corner watching you in public.

[Remiel]

I don't see any problem with it. If you're out in public, you have no expectation of privacy in this regard. It's tantamount to somebody standing on the street corner watching you in public.

That is not just what is at play though. You may say you have no expectation of privacy in a public place (what is a public washroom, by the way?), but that does not mean you do not have any expectation of not being continuously and actively surveilled in a public place; better known as stalking. Is there an essential difference between pervasive surveillance and stalking? If there is, it is a pretty damn thin distinction.

[Moonlight Graham]

Also you can't effectively legislate against popular and pervasive technology. See radar detectors.

It depends on the technology. It's easy to legislate what mobile phone companies and other technology companies can do, the government's use of technology for surveillance, people's use of drones (use would be easily susceptible to be caught, unlike radar detectors). You're making excuses for people who want to exploit you and/or invade your privacy and I don't know why.

Wherever possible I want 100% complete control over my privacy, my personal information etc. I want it legally required to have specific individual opt-out options in every conceivable manner I'm being tracked whenever I'm using technology or interacting with a business. Like when using a computer program or mobile app, consent is not enough, I want the option to opt-out unless it's 100% vital to the function of the technology. And I'm willing to pay more taxes for law enforcement or government privacy watchdogs to enforce this. A calculator app on my phone wanting to know my identity and contacts etc. is BS. Time to take back what's ours.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty easy to opt out...just don't use the technology. If an app is "free", you are the product.

[Michael Hardner]

It depends on the technology. It's easy to legislate what mobile phone companies and other technology companies can do, the government's use of technology for surveillance, people's use of drones (use would be easily susceptible to be caught, unlike radar detectors). You're making excuses for people who want to exploit you and/or invade your privacy and I don't know why.

I'm pointing out that it's not always possible to stop behaviour with legislation. There are other examples too.

Wherever possible I want 100% complete control over my privacy, my personal information etc. I want it legally required to have specific individual opt-out options in every conceivable manner I'm being tracked whenever I'm using technology or interacting with a business. Like when using a computer program or mobile app, consent is not enough, I want the option to opt-out unless it's 100% vital to the function of the technology. And I'm willing to pay m

ore taxes for law enforcement or government privacy watchdogs to enforce this. A calculator app on my phone wanting to know my identity and contacts etc. is BS. Time to take back what's ours.

I, in turn, want an updated version of public to reflect current technology, CCTV and digital technologies. I would rather we adjust legislation to decriminalize petty crime, and increase surveillance than give up on the opportunity to use this technology

[cybercoma]

I, in turn, want an updated version of public to reflect current technology, CCTV and digital technologies. I would rather we adjust legislation to decriminalize petty crime, and increase surveillance than give up on the opportunity to use this technology

I don't believe you've given due consideration to the effects of persistent surveillance on society. It's well-established that persistent surveillance creates a culture of self-censorship and a decline in political dissent. It allows people to be more easily manipulated and controlled by the government and those with economic power. Some researchers have even argued that it caused economic lag in Germany. I see you've widely considered the benefits of a surveillance society, but you should also look into the negative effects. However, mass surveillance can be incredibly problematic even if you're doing nothing wrong.

[GostHacked]

I'm pointing out that it's not always possible to stop behaviour with legislation. There are other examples too.

I, in turn, want an updated version of public to reflect current technology, CCTV and digital technologies. I would rather we adjust legislation to decriminalize petty crime, and increase surveillance than give up on the opportunity to use this technology

Government loves to stop behavior with legislation. That is why they create laws. But decriminalizing petty crimes is no reason to allow the increase of this persistent and ever growing surveillance. You already gave an inch, and they took a mile. You just don't realize yet (again possibly by choice) that this has already gone to far.

Sure throw up your hands and say 'whaddya gonna do'. And as for social influence, I've been trying to get you to see the other side of all this, but yet, that does not happen. Why? And then think of how that would work when you are trying to influence others.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't believe you've given due consideration to the effects of persistent surveillance on society. ... I see you've widely considered the benefits of a surveillance society, but you should also look into the negative effects. However, mass surveillance can be incredibly problematic even if you're doing nothing wrong.

Negative effects and even some positive effects are unknown, which is why I'm calling for suggestions- I don't think the information should be state owned

[eyeball]

Public domain information should certainly be free for all but not individual privacy.

We should have very strong laws that ensure full disclosure to those being surveilled by those who are watching them.

If state actors want to monitor my activities I want to monitor theirs. Otherwise I want cloaking technology.

[cybercoma]

Negative effects and even some positive effects are unknown

But they're not. We're able to study what happened in societies that were under mass surveillance and how it affected the people. It's widely accepted that at the very least it stifles political dissent and the best part for our governments is that this happens even if they don't actually have mass surveillance. People just need to believe that it's there and they will begin to self-censor dissenting opinions.

[Michael Hardner]

You already gave an inch, and they took a mile. You just don't realize yet (again possibly by choice) that this has already gone to far.

What are the examples of it going too far ? What results have happened?

Sure throw up your hands and say 'whaddya gonna do'. And as for social influence, I've been trying to get you to see the other side of all this, but yet, that does not happen. Why? And then think of how that would work when you are trying to influence others.

I want a more open discussion than people just saying this or good or bad. It's a complex change so it needs more enhanced discussion than that

[Michael Hardner]

But they're not. We're able to study what happened in societies that were under mass surveillance and how it affected the people. It's widely accepted that at the very least it stifles political dissent and the best part for our governments is that this happens even if they don't actually have mass surveillance. People just need to believe that it's there and they will begin to self-censor dissenting opinions.

I'm not advocating surveillance but sousveillance

[cybercoma]

I'm not advocating surveillance but sousveillance

Ok, so what is sousveillance exactly?

[Michael Hardner]

The people get access to the information not just the government

[cybercoma]

The people get access to the information not just the government

Care to elaborate? There's very good reasons people don't get access to all information. So I assume you don't mean everything.

And actually, this is less to do with surveillance and more to do with data liberation, but I'll hear you out.

Edited July 12, 2015 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

The issues I read often have to do with the state abusing the information so why not make it publicly available?

[cybercoma]

The issues I read often have to do with the state abusing the information so why not make it publicly available?

What information? You're not answering my questions. I have no idea what kind of program you're talking about here.

[Michael Hardner]

What information? You're not answering my questions. I have no idea what kind of program you're talking about here.

I guess you didn't look at the OP. It's possible to record photographic information capturing all movement happening in a city. If you make that information available to a public on the web, then there's an appreciative possibility that crime can be monitored/mitigated. However, public behavior will also be affected.

My query is .... can we discuss the idea of social counterpoints to having all public behavior viewable at all times ?

[cybercoma]

Ah. Right. You haven't seen the witch hunts that sites like reddit have gone playing amateur super-sleuths. Encouraging vigilantism could have seriously negative consequences. Are you prepared for those?

[Michael Hardner]

Ah. Right. You haven't seen the witch hunts that sites like reddit have gone playing amateur super-sleuths. Encouraging vigilantism could have seriously negative consequences. Are you prepared for those?

No. But... vigilantism is itself a crime.... maybe all crime would go online ?

[GostHacked]

I guess you didn't look at the OP. It's possible to record photographic information capturing all movement happening in a city. If you make that information available to a public on the web, then there's an appreciative possibility that crime can be monitored/mitigated. However, public behavior will also be affected.

My query is .... can we discuss the idea of social counterpoints to having all public behavior viewable at all times ?

This is a dangerous mindset in which we are now all becoming suspicious of each other. We are all watching each other and pointing fingers.

But this method is being introduced in the UK with the high amount of CCTV cameras they have. The public will now 'help' out with solving crimes. I say solving them, because crimes will still happen, now you just have been able to document the crime for prosecution. None of this deters or stops crime in any way.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crime

Seems to have some research papers regarding this exact thing.

The government wants us to spy on each other instead of keeping the government in check. It is a distraction and an attempt to pit citizen against citizen while the government gets way with other crimes that are way outside of the CCTV or public domain. As soon as you start to point those cameras into the governments dealings, we see a HUGE push back from them claiming privacy of government in the form of confidential or top secret information.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a dangerous mindset in which we are now all becoming suspicious of each other. We are all watching each other and pointing fingers.

I don't think that's true. You would have knowledge, which means suspicion would be eliminated. If you're worried about suspicion then this is the answer.

As soon as you start to point those cameras into the governments dealings, we see a HUGE push back from them claiming privacy of government in the form of confidential or top secret information.

Nobody actually cares about government data. This site is typical of the general public disinterest in the topic.