Is Privacy necessary to Democracy?

@Frank Apisa,

I agree with you Frank...

Imagine how much better society would be if the government (i.e. police) could put video recording devices in your house without your knowledge. It would pretty much put an end to child abuse and domestic violence. And, crimes could be solved in minutes with very little investigation.

Privacy really just gets in the way of a smoothly functioning society.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

It happens to be my opinion that the less privacy we each have...the better society is.

How do you figure?

If you think more information being hidden leads to a better society...go with it, IB.

Thank you for your blessing.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Might as well conceive of it as something improving things...than worsening them.

So, it's a matter of perception. Kinda like with the weather and rape, if it's inevitable, might as well enjoy it.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

It happens to be my opinion that the less privacy we each have...the better society is.

How do you figure?

If you think more information being hidden leads to a better society...go with it, IB.

Thank you for your blessing.

No problemo! Smile

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Might as well conceive of it as something improving things...than worsening them.

So, it's a matter of perception. Kinda like with the weather and rape, if it's inevitable, might as well enjoy it.

Like weather...but NOT at all like rape. That was just dumb. Mad

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

So, it's a matter of perception. Kinda like with the weather and rape, if it's inevitable, might as well enjoy it.

Like weather...but NOT at all like rape. That was just dumb.

In regard to violations and their preceptions, privacy is on the side of the spectrum with rape, not the weather.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Privacy of the kind you appear to want...is a thing of the past. We will never return to anything even close.

We both agree to the red. However it wasn't the question posed.

Quote:

As for the Internet...if you post on the Internet, you essentially give up your privacy voluntarily.

This is a rather fatalistic, 'I give up' type of statement, rather than a statement of actual voluntary surrender of the right to privacy, and it is only partly true:
- most states have privacy laws, that are meant to be enforceable. This shows that it is not meant meant to be carte blanche for companies on the net.
- a lot of companies have privacy policies - many of which show that those companies <with good privacy policies> believe in privacy... which shows that many believe it is not meant meant to be carte blanche for companies on the net.
- the laws of course haven't kept up, which is likely why the policies of the more invasive companies haven't kept up
- and there are ways to remain mostly anonymous online if not purchasing things online. But I also I doubt there is any foolproof way to remain anonymous online.

Quote:

It happens to be my opinion that the less privacy we each have...the better society is.

Unfortunately, none of your responses addressed the question of my OP.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Vikkor... first of all, some of what you are saying is just plain wrong.

Max, it is very, very, very clear that what I have been talking about relates to:
- automated surveillance
- mass surveillance capabilities
- the efficiencies of such
- the effectiveness of such

Each time you reply - you appear to ignore what is plainly written, to attempt to say 'there is no difference'. You cannot sanely, in any way shape or form, say that the above in any way similar in degree to what existed 100 years go.

To clarify - your examples have all been correct, while ignoring the vast differences that also exist. 1kg and 1000kg are both weights, and both capable of weighing things down - and that is where their similarities end when it comes to using each as a weight or moving them. You could draw very strong commonality comparisons between a cat and a dog (4 legs, tail, upright ears and so on), but they are very obviously different creatures. It is, and always will be, the differences (and of course the degree of difference) that defines things.

Quote:

I will remind you that slavery, a brutal international trade, involved tracking and moving a cargo of millions of human slaves between countries. Human beings were subjugated, tracked, bought and sold in an institution that lasted centuries.

This relates to my question how?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Of course I can.

When the Nazis wanted to round of Jewish people, it wasn't that difficult. They started with neighborhoods. Then they went door to door, had made lists based on church records. They also looked a book store receipts. Interviewed people at meetings, followed up on tips for dissidents.

I don't think this would have been any worse with today's information technology. As technology increases... the basics of life haven't changed. We are still making art, visiting family, listening to music, arguing about politics, buying crap we don't need. Technology has changed a little bit about how we do things.

The main change of technology is that we can do the same things with less labor. We haven't gotten rid of media, or journalism. We just now produce it with far fewer typists.

The Dictators are going to do with Dictators have always done. The Chinese purges, the Soviet purges, the Nazi purges, the Spanish Inquisition and hundreds of related witch hunts and racial all took place and were all very efficient.

The change with technology is that instead of sending inquisitors door to door, they can now look up information on an electronic list. But they will do the same things with perhaps less labor.

You are saying that modern dictators will be able to do things that the Nazi's and the Inquisition couldn't do. I do not believe that this is the case... not even of extent.

Kim Jong Un has a complete stranglehold on his country. No technology is needed, just an overwhelming fear backing a personality cult.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Is there any reason to not try to develop safeguards against electronic abuses?

It depends on the specific safeguard you are discussing. Some "safeguards" cause too damage to social structure and civil liberties to be considered seriously.

Some of them are probably good ideas. We have to discuss them case by case.

I'm interested in hearing your ideas.

I'm still interested in hearing your ideas.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Technology has changed a little bit about how we do things.. Hmmm. I am starting to suspect that, being involved in AI, you have little understanding of the problems and inefficiencies of manpower related surveillance / inquiries / tracking / locating a person....a little bit like university academics who, growing up in a sheltered university system, rarely seem to understand how the real world works...they have a theoretical understanding, but don't quite fathom how it actually applies and the problems that go with application.

Even with a person making a complaint (and as a point of difference in a integrated world, a computer system can generate a complaint / alert)...

.... police forces, with all of their manpower and current technology, still have trouble locating criminals...if they had complete and unfettered access to the wide array of information available out there, it would be much easier for them to find said criminal. As the world moves towards more and more integrated information, it will become easier and easier to locate said criminal. This, is a good thing. It comes with another issue though, as I see it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Ok...

1. I believe that freedom of speech is the bedrock of any free society. The main safeguards are to strengthen rights and the culture around freedom of expression.

2. People should be informed about technology. I support efforts to force companies to be transparent with what they will do with consumer data.

3. Technology companies have some work to do around security... particularly they need to socially engineer a security infrastructure that will make it easy for the normal consumer to have effective security.

4. Modern technology hasn't actually changed very much when it comes to the things that are important for a free society. We need education. We need freedom of expression. We need to right to protest. We need civil institutions that people trust.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

You are missing the point.

The Nazis had no problem setting up a surveillance state. The Soviets had no problem setting up a surveillance state. The British Empire had no problem setting up a surveillance state.

The challenge for police is because they are not in a surveillance state. A police officer has to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt... and they are supposed to make sure they don't shoot someone who is innocent. A Nazi doesn't have these worries.

The technology is probably more useful to someone who is in a free society. People in a totalitarian dictatorship can just go door to door to round people up without worrying that they might have made a mistake. Torturing someone until they make a confession and rat on their neighbors is far more effective than any electronic database.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You are missing the point.

Not at all. I actually agree with all of your points.

What I don't agree with is your minimalistic use of your points, coupled with your ignoring of degrees. I suspect part is motivated by your involvement in AI, and the other part is you simply don't comprehend the difference.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I have been doing all of the work Vikorr... You still haven't made a complete case.

The Nazis went from house to house to grab them and ship them away. How would modern technology have changed any of that?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

At some point in the future, it is quite easy to see that police forces, who currently wear cameras (or are moving towards such) - the cameras will have Facial Recognition built in, and as they walk through a crowd, will get alerts as to who is wanted. This is an ability that does has not currently been implemented (that I know of). Individual humans aren't capable of this - walking through a crowd and identifying every single wanted person. And this is only one part of where we are headed. As I previously mentioned - not a bad thing...but it comes with a drawback if democracy is every overthrown.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I have been doing all of the work Vikorr... You still haven't made a complete case.

Two things:
- your 'work' has been you saying what I already know. Thank you, but I am aware already of such things.
- my lacking a case in your mind is not a matter of me not presenting a case. It appears to be a matter of how your are processing it, coupled with a lack of comprehension on your part. I don't know that presenting a case to rectify that is worth it. It would not only require continuous real life examples, plus outline the difficulties involved in each and every example, but it would require continually drawing your attention to the patterns of the problems involved between each example. This usually comes from life experience in these areas.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

At some point in the past, police just went to people's houses and arrested them off of a list. Of course, the police could recognize important people in a crowd... but this was never very effective when you can just go to someone's house, or their job, or anywhere else they frequent.

Of course, people who know they are being hunted have always found ways to hide from whatever was the current technology. And the people hiding will have access to technology too. If I know the police are arresting people out of crowds, I will simply avoid crowds (or cover my face, or anything else I need to do).

The Nazis found and arrested and killed millions of people without any such technology.,

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I have always thought the worse surveillance techniques is when the police or teachers or any other authority figure use your own family to find out what you are saying at home to report to the totalitarian state.

This technique has been used effectively in North Korea and China. The most dangerous tools are always fear and nationalism.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The Nazis? They are a very poor example. My question relates to people in a resistance to a dictator. And in return you provide an example of:
- a government incrementally starting the targeting an ethnic group (with particular physical racial traits identifying most of them)
- likely living in their own neighbourhoods
- slowly using the education system to identify all those belonging to the ethnic group
- getting the population on side to identify all members of the ethnic group
- conducting mass roundups of the ethnic group

As a mass roundup it was very successful. Nor would it have been difficult. Very orchestrated in its execution, yes. Difficult - it doesn't appear to have been.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

So give me a better example in history where one of the many totalitarian regimes would have been more brutally effective had they been given modern AI.

I don't think there is one.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You want a hypothetic projected onto the past so that you can project a different hypothetical onto the past? There are no 'winners' in that scenario, and so there is very little point. Not to mention it would require an incredibly detailed knowledge of such to even make the discussion worthwhile.

1 Reply

Is Privacy necessary to Democracy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know