Is Privacy necessary to Democracy?

You posed more than one question...and being "nit picky" is necessary in discussions of this sort. It helps us narrow down that massive predicate you offered for your questions.



I answered your follow-up question the way I wanted. If you think the comparison is "terrible"...so be it. I do not consider it terrible...I consider it a way of expressing the fact that SOME loss of personal privacy can be mitigated by each individual adjusting his/her conduct depending upon just how much the problem impacts them.



I did not suggest that you suggested the Internet is the only part your are talking about. What was your point in mentioning this?



I'm not sure of what you are suggesting there.

As I see it, our future will feature less and less personal privacy. We can bemoan that fact...or we can make the most of it.

My vote: Make the most of it.

Seriously? I repeated around 4 times the one central question my posts revolve around- prior to your first response. Still claiming multiple questions without specifying the alleged question your were replying to - are you trying to clarify your intent, or just looking to argue & nit pick.

Oh, ok. Thanks for those examples.

I agree with the benefits of those instances, but I think the OP was getting at other instances of invasions of privacy like the data collected on computers and smartphones. They have the potential to be abused by government and hackers.

I was making a note of numerous sources of personal information available to tech giants and government, and how, if all used together, they pose a threat to the return to democracy (though their ability to idenitfy who, and allow govt to track & know every aspect of any person life who is attempting the return to democracy) - should democracy ever fall or become corrupted enough to no longer resemble democracy. This includes:

- the ever moving trend towards the centralisation of all digital information
+
- location services (on phones)
- facial recognition linked to centralised servers hooking into CCTV (location services)
- the likely eventual move towards facial recognition services on all law enforcement personal (who now carry body worn cameras, so it is only another existing tech to add)
- already existing instant communication between enforcement personnel (which can still be improved)
+
- all internet traffic being scooped up (couple with key word alarms)
- all phone calls being scooped up (coupled with key word alarms)
+
- tech platforms (facebook etc) providing govt with every friend you have
- tech 'phone number backup' platforms providing contacts for every friend you have
+
- tech already existing to track any one individual on the net, regardless of attempts to hide behind VPN's/TOR etc (this is mentioned in context of the central question
+
- digital bank accounts
- credit card purchases enabling purchase history (which by itself is no big deal. What it does do is link into all of the above to give movement histories)
+
the ability to link between all of those
+
The automated nature of all of those links & the automated nature of searching those linkages.

Ie. In a future society, with true information integration - If any group were attempting to return an overthrown democracy back to democracy:
- its pool of individual canditates will likely be elminated from lack of technical knowledge regarding the internet, phone issues, and general communication issues
- as almost all forms of communication on the net can be monitored (even Edward Snowden had to bend over backwards, with knowledge, to avoid detection)...so how to you start a group for that return, and grow that group/movement, or co-ordinate across the large areas of a country that would need to be co-ordinated across?
- For phone calls - same issues above (there are some messaging services believed secure)
- so, even the beginnings of a movement are difficult, and any coordinated movement to return democracy appears impossible.
+
- and inidividuals who do not understand the connected world we live in, leave themselves open to be picked up very easily (Max doesn't quite comprehend the difference in manpower hours between human based intel & computerised tracking efficiencies)
- and so on, and so on...

Basically, the way we are heading - years in the future when everything is truly centralised and integrated - if democracy should ever fall, then it appears to me unlikely that any movement to return democracy would even be able to get off the ground.

Currently, while many dictators are successful at suppressing their population through methods Max mentioned...many are also unsuccessful, and get overthrown. My concern is that with the move towards centralised/integrated information - in tech centralised countries - it will no longer be possible to overthrow dictatorial regimes.

That of course, is a projection onto future events, where the tech is truly integrated, and in the hands of the wrong people.

Perhaps it will never come to that.

Is it worth the trade off, though? I value my privacy, and am not especially trusting of my, or any other government.

This is the worse, nightmare Vikorr can come up with.... his worst case to scare us. And it isn't that bad.


1. Facial recognition
2. Tracking of purchases (that you aren't trying to hide).
3. Contact tracing asking people to reveal their associates.
4. Listening into communications
5. Communication between law enforcement.
6. Automation

The first five things exist long before modern technology (facial recognition existed as Wanted Posters in Post Offices hundreds of years ago). Operators have been listening into phone calls since the first phones were installed. So yes, we are automating it.... that is the only real change here.


It is pretty easy for me to hide the connections I want to hide. My drug dealer is not my Facebook Friend. It isn't that difficult.

This is the worst you can up with, and it isn't much that already existed and wasn't that bad.

You are ignoring all the ways that technology helps democracy. We are in an unparalleled age of access to information and the ability to communicate openly.

And, now there is a way for me to make an encrypted phone call that I am certain the government can't listen too. That is something new.

Ummm...wow Max, I've never seen you post anything so self serving before:

1. You making misleading / exagerated statements to serve your own self interest:

- I've asked a question, rather than painted a nightmare 'to scare people'
- I've continually qualified that question, with 'perhaps it may never happen', you are welcome to your position, it is a hypothetical projection on my part...so painting it as trying to come up with the worst nightmare is simply misleading.

2. You removed context from everyone one of your 'paraphrasing' of me, which use misrepresents while allowing arguments that self serve your position:

1. Facial recognition (and your claim it existed prior to computerisation - Ignoring my issue is the automated tracking it enables, in context of my question)
2. Tracking of purchases (that you aren't trying to hide). (ignoring I also implied your part in red, saying it wasn't an issue by itself, and ignoring the only issue I had with it)
3. Contact tracing asking people to reveal their associates. Not my claim
4. Listening into communications This is a misrepresentation. I've not particular issue listenning to communication in certain circumstances. The issue I stated was the mass gathering and storing of all forms of communication, that can be used to identify and search for people through automation. As an addition, the issue it causes should a democratic government ever fall.
5. Communication between law enforcement.This is a misrepresentation - I've no issue with this - except in the context of automated surveillance during the overthrow of a democratic government
6. Automation This is a misreprentation - I've no issue with automation - except in context of automated surveillance and tracking in the context of the overthrow of a democractic government

The majority of your replies on this thread have ignored the central question I posed (which entirely removes context), utterly ignored the vast degree of efficiencies between human surveillance and mass surveillance, ignore the uniquely efficient & effective tracking capabilities of GPS/Facial Recognition tracking (as compared to pure human tracking)...and for what purpose?

You work in AI, so you know the huge efficiencies and increase in effectiveness that can be achieve, over many human endeavours.

So there is no reason whatsoever to so downplay the efficiencies gained in computerisation...to ignore what greater integration of surveillance systems can achieve....and continually attempt to remove the context of my posts...and misrepresent me...unless you have vested interests related to your job in AI.

You're an intelligent man who gives a lot of thoughtful insight on these forums. I am hugely disappointed in you.

Explain to me how automated facial recognition is more effective to a dictatorial regime than simply recognizing faces the old fashioned way as you are rounding up people on the street?

To answer you question...

I can't think of anything currently done by AI that can't be done by humans (with the possible exception of search engines)... at least not in a commercially viable way. Maybe targeted ads?

AI doesn't make police work any easier in any substantial way.

AI is very good at replacing human beings with computers while lowering cost. That is the work I have done. That doesn't change the work done by the secret police in an authoritarian regime.

I have professional expertise in this field. You seem to be rejecting it. The fact is that AI is not magic. It is just math.

Post your question clearly and I will respond. If the thrust of your question is that contained in the title of this thread...

...my succinct answer is NO.

Absolutely, positively not!

I am sure you are correct in that.

But I still think less personal privacy is more beneficial to society than more personal privacy.

And as I said, there will soon be much less. Better to figure ways to use it to advantage than bemoan the inevitable.

In my opinion...it is worth the tradeoff.

Obviously you are of the other mind, which I respect.

To clarify, what’s being bemoaned isn’t the loss of privacy, per se. What is being bemoaned is the potential for the abuse of this loss of privacy.

I understand. However, there is a potential for the abuse of too much privacy also.

There is the potential for abuse of damn near everything.

I truly understand the people who want much more personal privacy. I've simply decided that society benefits more from less personal privacy than from more.

I have no problem with the many people who think I am nuts for my stance.

You are obviously not 'nuts'. Naturally, we will disagree from time to time.

I have been thinking about this.

1. Assuming that we are in a good, decent, free democratic society, the police can use technological tools to find and prosecute terrorists.

2. When we are in a bad, evil, repressive totalitarian society, the police can use technological tools to find and persecute brave resistance movements.

What is the difference between these two. My thesis is that these technological tools are more useful in the first case.... because the job of policing is much more difficult in a democratic society.

In a repressive regime, you can just go and round people up without worrying if they are actually guilty or not. In that case, technological tools to decide if someone is guilty or not is kind of extra gravy. You can torture people or make them disappear just fine without any data. All you need are well armed police.

Sure, but the topic of this thread isn’t about damn near anything; it’s specifically about the loss of privacy, its potential abuse and its detriment to democracy.

I agree.

And it is my position that less personal privacy is more a positive for society than a negative...and that greater personal privacy is more a negative for society than a positive.

Without a society...there is no democracy.

Privacy? Here and on Facebook people are encouraged to post as much information on themselves as possible. Not much fear of lack of privacy here.

I'm not on Facebook.

I resist progressive attempts to pry into my private life. They certainly do try though.