Moonlight Graham Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) The people get access to the information not just the government 1. So you want everyone knowing what a whole bunch of people, if not everyone, are doing? 2. Where do you draw the line of this tech if you're in favor of its use? What are the defined uses and limits. Would you even be in favour of cameras on every street recording all street-level movement and interactions of people at all times in the public domain, with this footage being freely available to everyone? Edited July 13, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 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 ? Interesting thought experiment. But what exactly do you mean by "social counterpoints"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Well that's what it is. Nobody reads OPs these days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Interesting thought experiment. But what exactly do you mean by "social counterpoints"? Like - people being less sanctimonious for example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 13, 2015 Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Are you just talking about what the responses might be by people in reaction to this technology being constantly in use everywhere? How people will change their behaviour in response to being under constant surveillance, and how society overall would change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2015 Yes. Talking about it will make it easier to anticipate the effects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Yes. Talking about it will make it easier to anticipate the effects The effects were already anticipated. The result was blase. 'I don't mind', but then .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 No, they weren't. Nobody could have predicted that social media would herald a new era of mob morality, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 No, they weren't. Nobody could have predicted that social media would herald a new era of mob morality, for example. Do you know what social engineering is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Do you know what social engineering is? As far as the term is commonly used, yes. But there are no super-geniuses in existence who can look at an impactful and pervasive society and predict the results. It's not done. Instead, you have people who look for short-term advantages in technology and don't see the big picture. At the same you have the Luddite types, who resist change on principle. My feeling is that, although pervasive technology may seem like the realization of Orwell's vision, the reality of distributed technology make bring crime and criminals closer to home in the end. If it's possible to use Persistent Surveillance to view a criminal, then it's possible to see their whole lives, and the totality of their problems. The same technology that doesn't let criminals get away with crime, won't let the rest of us get away with ignoring social problems when they're right under our nose. What about if we allowed Persistent Surveillance, but matched the costs involved so as to create a just system that's more individually focused on turning around the convinced individual ? Can we imagine such things ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 The same technology that doesn't let criminals get away with crime, won't let the rest of us get away with ignoring social problems when they're right under our nose. Not sure what this means....it will still be quite easy to ignore "social problems". Indeed, we already have television and YouTube videos that reports such things for entertainment. What about if we allowed Persistent Surveillance, but matched the costs involved so as to create a just system that's more individually focused on turning around the convinced individual ? Can we imagine such things ? Not going to happen based on present costs and infrastructure. Example: the hue and cry for police body cameras quickly hits a brick wall when all that video has to be uploaded, indexed, and stored for retrieval. Not cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 As far as the term is commonly used, yes. But there are no super-geniuses in existence who can look at an impactful and pervasive society and predict the results. It's not done. Instead, you have people who look for short-term advantages in technology and don't see the big picture. At the same you have the Luddite types, who resist change on principle. My feeling is that, although pervasive technology may seem like the realization of Orwell's vision, the reality of distributed technology make bring crime and criminals closer to home in the end. If it's possible to use Persistent Surveillance to view a criminal, then it's possible to see their whole lives, and the totality of their problems. The same technology that doesn't let criminals get away with crime, won't let the rest of us get away with ignoring social problems when they're right under our nose. What about if we allowed Persistent Surveillance, but matched the costs involved so as to create a just system that's more individually focused on turning around the convinced individual ? Can we imagine such things ? You have a habit of conflating technological capability with legal and moral concepts. The reason why we have the right to private communication, private movement, etc, has nothing to do with what technology was around at the time. Its because these things are necessary to have a healthy functional democracy. This is evidenced by your nonsensical assertion that email should be less private than snail mail in the past. The same technology that doesn't let criminals get away with crime, won't let the rest of us get away with ignoring social problems when they're right under our nose. Actually I think this technology would be a criminals dream come true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Are you suggesting that when we pass laws we anticipate future technology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Are you suggesting that when we pass laws we anticipate future technology? No Im saying that the underlying legal and moral concepts dont change because technology does. The reason for example that warrants were required for phone taps was because it was decided that private conversations should be protected. The fact that technology provided new mediums for that provide conversation should have no bearing on it... its the speech itself thats protected whether your talking through two cans and a string or in an email or on a cellphone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 That's insane. So how will these unchangeable concepts handle future mind reading technology? Technology and laws are human inventions, and they have to change with time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 As far as the term is commonly used, yes. But there are no super-geniuses in existence who can look at an impactful and pervasive society and predict the results. It's not done. Instead, you have people who look for short-term advantages in technology and don't see the big picture. At the same you have the Luddite types, who resist change on principle. My feeling is that, although pervasive technology may seem like the realization of Orwell's vision, the reality of distributed technology make bring crime and criminals closer to home in the end. If it's possible to use Persistent Surveillance to view a criminal, then it's possible to see their whole lives, and the totality of their problems. The same technology that doesn't let criminals get away with crime, won't let the rest of us get away with ignoring social problems when they're right under our nose. What about if we allowed Persistent Surveillance, but matched the costs involved so as to create a just system that's more individually focused on turning around the convinced individual ? Can we imagine such things ? The problem is what constitutes a crime. I want that same surveillance apparatus focused on the Watchers as much as they are watching us. If they are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide. Mike, can you install cameras in your bedroom so I can keep an eye on you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 That's insane. So how will these unchangeable concepts handle future mind reading technology? With principles...and tinfoil. Technology and laws are human inventions, and they have to change with time Why does it follow that we have to adjust or abandon our principles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Why does it follow that we have to adjust or abandon our principles? What makes you think they were ever firmly adopted in the first place ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 The things I learned in kindergarten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 The things I learned in kindergarten. Same things that other children learned.....so what ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 That's insane. So how will these unchangeable concepts handle future mind reading technology? Technology and laws are human inventions, and they have to change with time Whats insane is suggesting that just because a technology becomes available that allows someone to more easily violate your rights, that those rights are somehow obsolete. They arent. You seem to lack even a cursory understanding of how contitutional laws work. They define broad concepts, such as rights to privacy, free speech, and prevent the government from curtailing these rights. They dont need to change with technology because thats completely irrelevent. You still have the same underlying rights no matter what technology a person invents. So how will these unchangeable concepts handle future mind reading technology? What a stupid question. Do you not live here in Canada? The technology has existed to open and read snail mail since the invention of snail mail. The government isnt allowed to do it without a warrant. The technology has existed to tap a phone call for 50 years... the government isnt allowed to do it without a warrant. Mind reading technology is no different. It would be a blatant violation of your rights to your own intellectual property and privacy and security. Private companies could not legally use it on you without your expressed consent, and the government would not be able to use it without an order from the courts after showing that violating your rights was warranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 What about under oath ? At customs ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) What about under oath ? At customs ? Same thing... If the government has a legitimate case for violating your rights they can make that case to a judge and try to get a court order that allows them to violate some of your rights. But a program to use this hypothetical mind reading surveillance on EVERYONE in those situations would be struck down by the courts and rightly so. A good indicator for your "mind reader" hypothetical would be the polygraph and the various rulings around that. Thats another technology designed to get information from people that they might not be willing to give. A good counter example that might make you understand what you already should know as a grown adult in Canada.... Lets take your "mind reader" example and flip it upside down and invent a "mind writer". A mind writer could make people think and say and believe certain things... It could even make them subscribe to a certain religion. And you could enter into a contract with a private company to have this technology used on you... maybe to make you stop drinking or to forget a painful memory. The government could NOT use it on you without your consent however because you have the constitution right to free speech, free thought, free expression, and to choose your own religion. That should illustrate to you why legal human rights are technology-agnostic... and why the broad concepts defined in constitutions, charters, and bills of rights have survived more or less unchanged even though they may have been written when the horse and buggy was the common mode of transportation. These concepts are technology agnostic. Edited July 20, 2015 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Speaking of technology... If you use the QUOTE feature people will know that you have replied to them. Its entirely constitutional I assure you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Speaking of technology... If you use the QUOTE feature people will know that you have replied to them. Its entirely constitutional I assure you. So if Persistent Surveillance only captures your movements in public spaces how does it invade privacy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.