Looking at your links I rather suspect we are on the different sides of barricades.
Not necessarily a problem. I think I need to expose myself to the potential problems of surveillance now, and what’s really missing from the research now is a good credible case that surveillance can turn a democratic government despotic. What are the mechanisms, how have they operated before, what are the warning signs, etc...
My current position is that technology is making privacy hopeless, so a full “transparent society” is the only way to deal with this—but that position may be subject to change!
Not necessarily a problem. I think I need to expose myself to the potential problems of surveillance now, and what’s really missing from the research now is a good credible case that surveillance can turn a democratic government despotic.
Isn’t a US government where the president claims the power the political powers that distinguished a Roman dictator from other Roman rules a good good example of a government turning despotic? Those powers being to use the military inside his own borders, being allowed to kill citizens of his own country without judicial oversight and waging wars by his own decision.
The director of intelligence can keep his job despite the criminal act of lying under oath to congress. In what we call in Europe a democratic state something like that doesn’t happen.
The US government imprisions a higher percentage of it’s population than any other country.
US congressional approval ratings are lower than the approval ratings of China’s leadership.
When the UK is using antiterrorism legislation for Gleen Greenwalds boyfriend, do you really believe that the NSA that surveilled Martin Luther King in his days doesn’t also use antiterrorism legislation to go after political dissidents?
In another case that’s very troubling, after the saving and loans debable the US government did persecute bankers. After the last crisis they didn’t. That indicates a change of power away from a country where there’s a rule of law.
Just take those political changes of the last two decades and extrapolate from them.
A while ago there was an EU paper that suggested that in a trainstation an AI should trigger a safety alert if a person is isn’t entering a train and effectively is there too long.
You have the opportunity to punish various sorts of thoughtcrime with lowered credit score or with a score that increases the likelihood that you will get audited.
I think I need to expose myself to the potential problems of surveillance now, and what’s really missing from the research now is a good credible case that surveillance can turn a democratic government despotic.
Don’t forget that research doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Part of the danger of poweful surveillance is that those organisations have power that they can use to dissuade such research.
Those powers being to use the military inside his own borders, being allowed to kill citizens of his own country without judicial oversight and waging wars by his own decision.
And these powers derive from the 9/11 trauma, not from mass surveillance. And we’ve seen far worse in the US in the last 60 years.
I certainly agree that surveillance enables bad governments, but I’ve yet to see a good argument that surveillance causes good governments to go bad (eg UK vs France).
The director of intelligence can keep his job despite the criminal act of lying under oath to congress. In what we call in Europe a democratic state something like that doesn’t happen.
Alas, that does happen, and has happened, regularly over the last years, decades, and centuries.
Don’t forget that research doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Part of the danger of poweful surveillance is that those organisations have power that they can use to dissuade such research.
If I find anything like that happening, you’ll all be the first to know!
Nitpick: Who was carrying large numbers of classified documents on him when caught.
Nitpick doubled: (a) Why does the UK care about documents classified by the US? and (b) The antiterrorism legislation used was designed (and was explicitly promised to be used only) for cases rather more serious than carrying classified documents.
Those powers being to use the military inside his own borders, being allowed to kill citizens of his own country without judicial oversight and waging wars by his own decision.
And these powers derive from the 9/11 trauma, not from mass surveillance. And we’ve seen far worse in the US in the last 60 years.
I certainly agree that surveillance enables bad governments, but I’ve yet to see a good argument that surveillance causes good governments to go bad (eg UK vs France).
The director of intelligence can keep his job despite the criminal act of lying under oath to congress. In what we call in Europe a democratic state something like that doesn’t happen.
Alas, that does happen, and has happened, regularly over the last years, decades, and centuries.
surveillance can turn a democratic government despotic
There are more failure modes than this.
In general, it’s fairly complicated because to discuss what’s good or bad about X you need a fleshed-out value framework which will allow you to make explicit what “good” and “bad” means and which will also allow you to specify shades of grey and talk about trade-offs.
It’s possible to ignore this issue and just attempt to discuss what kind of situations and consequences will X lead to without evaluating things as good or bad—but that discussion will still be colored by the values and the preferences. Having these values “invisible” and unexamined tends to… complicate discussions :-)
Not necessarily a problem. I think I need to expose myself to the potential problems of surveillance now, and what’s really missing from the research now is a good credible case that surveillance can turn a democratic government despotic. What are the mechanisms, how have they operated before, what are the warning signs, etc...
My current position is that technology is making privacy hopeless, so a full “transparent society” is the only way to deal with this—but that position may be subject to change!
Isn’t a US government where the president claims the power the political powers that distinguished a Roman dictator from other Roman rules a good good example of a government turning despotic? Those powers being to use the military inside his own borders, being allowed to kill citizens of his own country without judicial oversight and waging wars by his own decision.
The director of intelligence can keep his job despite the criminal act of lying under oath to congress. In what we call in Europe a democratic state something like that doesn’t happen.
The US government imprisions a higher percentage of it’s population than any other country. US congressional approval ratings are lower than the approval ratings of China’s leadership.
When the UK is using antiterrorism legislation for Gleen Greenwalds boyfriend, do you really believe that the NSA that surveilled Martin Luther King in his days doesn’t also use antiterrorism legislation to go after political dissidents?
In another case that’s very troubling, after the saving and loans debable the US government did persecute bankers. After the last crisis they didn’t. That indicates a change of power away from a country where there’s a rule of law.
Just take those political changes of the last two decades and extrapolate from them.
A while ago there was an EU paper that suggested that in a trainstation an AI should trigger a safety alert if a person is isn’t entering a train and effectively is there too long.
You have the opportunity to punish various sorts of thoughtcrime with lowered credit score or with a score that increases the likelihood that you will get audited.
Don’t forget that research doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Part of the danger of poweful surveillance is that those organisations have power that they can use to dissuade such research.
And these powers derive from the 9/11 trauma, not from mass surveillance. And we’ve seen far worse in the US in the last 60 years.
I certainly agree that surveillance enables bad governments, but I’ve yet to see a good argument that surveillance causes good governments to go bad (eg UK vs France).
Alas, that does happen, and has happened, regularly over the last years, decades, and centuries.
If I find anything like that happening, you’ll all be the first to know!
Nitpick: Who was carrying large numbers of classified documents on him when caught.
I mostly agree with your point.
Nitpick doubled: (a) Why does the UK care about documents classified by the US? and (b) The antiterrorism legislation used was designed (and was explicitly promised to be used only) for cases rather more serious than carrying classified documents.
Which isn’t a crime. Even if it would be because it violated some secret UK gap order law it isn’t terrorism.
And these powers derive from the 9/11 trauma, not from mass surveillance. And we’ve seen far worse in the US in the last 60 years.
I certainly agree that surveillance enables bad governments, but I’ve yet to see a good argument that surveillance causes good governments to go bad (eg UK vs France).
Alas, that does happen, and has happened, regularly over the last years, decades, and centuries.
There are more failure modes than this.
In general, it’s fairly complicated because to discuss what’s good or bad about X you need a fleshed-out value framework which will allow you to make explicit what “good” and “bad” means and which will also allow you to specify shades of grey and talk about trade-offs.
It’s possible to ignore this issue and just attempt to discuss what kind of situations and consequences will X lead to without evaluating things as good or bad—but that discussion will still be colored by the values and the preferences. Having these values “invisible” and unexamined tends to… complicate discussions :-)