Is Privacy necessary to Democracy?

Computerisation of many endevours has resulted in greater efficiences, increased effecitiveness, reduced numbers of person needed....otherwise no one would computerise, and you would be out of a job. The benefits of it are the sole reason you are employed in the area...but you want to pretend that it creates greater efficiences and increased effectiveness in every other endeavour (where it is used) bar surveillance, which of course, is absolute nonsense, and you know it.

But to humour you, below are the benefits, and those benefits will only improve with time....There are likely Tens of thousands (and I use this number to not cause arguments) of CCTV camera's accross the US. Numbers of such are climibing every year, in every advanced country, coupled with facial recognition systems (that are also improving each year), and:

- facial recognition is able to recognise the one person on any of those cameras in any of those cities, wanted from any other city in the country. If this doesn't exist exactly now, you know it will exist eventually. Most law enforcement only now their local criminals. And none of them know faces into the thousands. Again, this is something no one person is campable of

- Facial recognition can recognise every single person who's face shows on a CCTV camera who is in the data base. No person on earth is capable of doing that. In a place like NYC, even 100 officers watching a single screen are unlikely to be able to do this given the numbers of people they deal with.

- facial recognition systems can generate hundreds of alerts simulatneously. No one person on earth is capable of this. I use 'hundreds' so as to not cause arguments - the ceiling is likely much, much higher.

- facial recognition systems can provide locations for all those people at once. No one person can do this. You would need an person watching and reporting on location for each wanted person.

- facial recognition systems can follow hundreds of people at once from CCTV camera to CCTV camera. No one person is capable of this. The greater the numbers of wanted persons being followed, the greater the number of personnel needed. I use 'hundreds' so as to not cause arguments.

- Facial recognition systems can provide images of what each of those 100+ persons are wearing (same avoid argument numbers). The more automated the process becomes, the more automated will the images be received by enforcement personnel in the field.

- Facial recognition, despite all your objections, acts as extra eye out there, that the authority/organisation/government otherwise doesn't have

- and on the enforcement personnel side, once body worn cameras with facial recognition exist, with the ability to create alerts, even the most unskilled enforcement personnel will be able to identify every wanted person they walk past (and most only know 10's to hundreds, while facial recognition will capture ALL wanted persons on the CCTV screen).

.............

And this is just CCTV/Facial recognition and nothing else on my list. But, again - you KNOW the above...but pretend it is not so...same of the rest of my list. You KNOW the benefits of how they function individually, and you KNOW the benefits of them becoming integrated (because again, you work in AI)...but you pretend there are no massive efficiencies to be gained over just using personnel.

You are setting up a strawman argument.

I have never said that computerization doesn't lead to greater efficiencies. What I am saying is that this will not drastically impact a government ability to fight groups that it considers to be terrorists.

That is two different things. My bank now uses automation to answer my phone calls, that saves them some money... but it doesn't change my relationship to my bank or my expectation of service.

In your hypothetical; a government is using facial recognition to combat a "terrorist" organization. (These labels are from the government's point of view... but whether this is good government or a repressive government doesn't matter to your argument).

You propose that the government has a list of people it wants to arrest... along with their photos. And sure... you could set up a system so that the police chief would get a little alert on their phone notifying her that a wanted person was detected at location A at time B. And this police chief could send officers to go arrest (or shoot) said suspect.

Obviously you would want this system to be accurate (you don't want to get a bing for the wrong person)... and the number of people on the list should be fairly small (if everyone is wanted, then there aren't enough police officers to do anything about it).

So what? This may or may not add efficiency to the case where the police want to arrest people who are already on a watch list. Police do this without any facial recognition technology anyway... but sure they will be more efficient.

But this not going to change the society in a drastic way. The survival of our government will never rest on facial recognition technology.

It is even less valuable for repressive governments. If I am brutal dictator and I have your name and photo in my list... I don't need to find you. I will find your wife, or your mother or your kids. And even if I don't, the fact that you will live your life as a fugitive in fear is enough for me.

Max, as I directly said - you admit greater efficiencies...except in computerised surveillance, where you pretend there aren't any. And every single post of yours, replying to me, and relating to computerised surveillance has done exactly this, or implied exactly this. Starting from the below two posts, and continuing:

In earlier times your friends were the people who lived nearby. Long before there were computers hey would track you by your neighborhood... the Catholics all lived in one area. They had no problem tracking and persecuting Catholics. Ie. computerised surveillance is of no benefit

If you look at the mass persecutions of the past which happened just fine without electronic computers... I am not convinced that modern technology changes very much. Ie. Computerised surveillance is of no benefit

Good old fashioned torture told them more than could be gleaned from a database, and Iron Maiden will get more out of you than your search history. What can modern computers do that the Spanish Inquisition couldn't?

What information could be used by a dictator in 2020 that wasn't used ...

In 1966 in the Cultural Revolution of Chairman Mao in China
In 1937 during the Red Purge in the Soviet Union
In 1800s enforcing the fugitive slave laws.
In the 1700 during Witch Hunts
In the 1470s during the Spanish Inquisition.

Ie. Computerised surveillance is of no benefit

And you go on, and on, in this vein over multiple posts.

Would you like me to post more quotes of yours, where you reinforce over and over the above?

If you have a mortgage, you have basically given ALL of your privacy. Our entire credit system is based on the idea that companies have the right to know everything about your financial picture. This includes your age, your marital status, everywhere you have worked, how much you make, your spending habits... it is pretty invasive.

I have become grateful for our credit system. I spend a lot of time in Mexico. They only recently instituted a credit system, and the best mortgage rates with a 10% down payments run about 12%.

Our credit system, with its lack of privacy, has greatly helped the ability of middle class Americans to get affordable credit.

I never said it would. It is you who is trying to narrow down the broad stream I introduced to just facial recognition.

For the rest of your questions - if you stop behaving in a way that you KNOW is inaccurate, then perhaps we can have a rational discussion.

You are making a strawman argument.

I have never said there weren't greater efficiencies in "computerised surveillance". I have never said that "computerised surveillance" is no no benefit.

If you are going to have a reasoned discussion, you need to address the points I am actually making. Otherwise you are really just arguing with yourself.

Vikkor... first of all, some of what you are saying is just plain wrong. They have always been able to tell what you buy and where you go.Ie. Computerised surveillance is of no benefit.

You are correct in one thing. Now this information is "instant", but who cares? It is not a significant change. Ie. Computerised surveillance is of little benefit.

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. Ie. Computerised surveillance is of little benefit.

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. Ie. Computerised surveillance is of no benefit

Do you want me to keep posting quotes where you continue to imply such?

Off topic, but what is the point of replying "using different colors for each speaker" instead of the normal quote function that can differentiate between speakers much more effectively?

You aren't the only person who does it, but so far when I ask people no one has explained why they do it.

Quoting from such posts is really tedious. I'm not trying to quote from your posts here. But I've quoted from these kinds of posts before.

You are being silly. This is my point.

Modern technology has a benefit in creating efficiencies in jobs that are traditionally done by humans.

Modern technology (including facial recognition) doesn't have a significant impact on the ability of a government to stamp out groups it considers to be terrorists.

These are both true in my opinion. You seem to be confusing them.

The quote function is really useful for single, or dual quotes. Once you go past that, it becomes quite unwieldly. Ie. I'm using colours to represent quotes so the post doesn't spread out over a larger area / it condenses the information, making comparisons easier to see side by side.

Not at all. You are replying to my post on computerised surveillance (in context of my question), and you continually imply that computerised surveillance is:
- little to no more effective that human surveillance; and
- little to no more efficient than human surveillance

You could make a point that "Modern surveillance technology and the direction it is heading doesn't have a significant impact on the ability of a government to stamp out groups it considers to be terrorists. I've modified the red in order to make us talking about the same subject (otherwise what is the point). And I say 'could' make a point, because you would have to deal with reality, stop minimising reality and stop pretending you don't understand the degree of efficiencies gained (like you pretended with facial recognition, as just the very latest example). Then stop trying to mislead others (like again you did with facial recog, pretending it was the only computerised surveillance technique I was talking about, and not it being part of a much larger computerised surveillance system). And not removing my statements, in general, from context.

If I tell you what my points are ... then those are my points. I will tell you what I believe (you don't have to make it up).

1. Yes, I am absolutely saying that computerized surveillance is "little to no more effective" than human surveillance in helping a government stamp out terrorist groups.

2. No, I am not saying that computer that computerized surveillance is "little to no more efficient".

I will tell you clearly what I am arguing. You don't have to make it up.

Instead of this silly little game you are playing with strawman arguments, how about telling me what your points are.

Exactly how do you think that modern computer surveillance will help a government control subversive groups in a substantial way. You have pointed out that once a government has a list of known terrorists that it can use facial recognition to make the job of rounding them up easier. That is efficiency.

If you are claiming that this will substantially help a government stamp out terrorism (or opposition groups), we disagree.

Instead of playing this silly game of insults, make your points.

I've already done that.

Wonderful. Now you need to go through the list I mentioned and explain why that wouldn't help stamp out 'terrorists'...which you've not done.

What you have done is given examples of dictatorial regimes clamping down on their citizens, which we both actually agree with.

What you haven't done is acknowledged the regimes that have been over thrown despite the clampdowns.

And further to that, not acknowledged that when I say I worry that regimes will no longer be able to be overthrown (in a a truly integrated society with mass computerised surveillance), I am pointing out that the way things are going, there is every possibility of such being reduced to almost zero. That would be a big change from the previous status quo (no regimes getting overthrown anymore)

AI is all about joining the dots / problem solving and maths language. You're smart enough to understand the above without needing it explained to you.

Of course you are. I've already provided several quotes where you say:
- a little
- perhaps less manpower
- and virtually all of your examples where you say 'humans can do that too' doesn't acknowledge any efficiency in computerisation
- etc

You are making a claim about facial recognition. I am skeptical. It is not my job to prove a negative.

You have to defend your own claims. I told you why I don't find your arguments compelling... but I have no obligation to do so. You are making the claim, you have the obligation to provide the evidence to support it.

Instead of any rational arguments, you are making strawman attacks.

You need to do a better job to prove this claim you are making.

And here you are doing it again - pretending that is anywhere near the whole of what I have been talking about (or attempting to narrow down the whole to just this, which amounts to the same thing). It was a late inclusion, if an important one, and one I've fully explained.... but still just a small part of the whole.

Stop removing things from context.

It is my position that modern "computerized technology", including facial recognition, will have very little impact on the ability of a government to control opposition groups or terrorist groups.

The reasons I take this position.

- Anything that computerized technology can do can be done through traditional methods. There is a matter of efficiency... yes, police can round up people on a watch list more quickly, but this does not have a significant impact on a governments overall ability to fight terrorists.

- Modern Technology used in society in general also helps the terrorist groups. I can now talk to my associates on an encrypted call that the government can't listen to. This has never been feasible until now. The NSA uses the internet to watch the terrorists. The terrorists use the internet to communicate away from the NSA. The balance remains.

- I accept that computerized technology can make overall surveillance easier on a grand scale. I don't think this has very much impact in a governments fight against terrorists. First of all, surveillance requires that you know who the terrorists are in the first place (facial recognition requires a face). And the terrorists will know how to adapt to new technology.

- Regressive regimes don't care about who they arrest. If you are on my watch list, I don't need to find you... I will go after your family. Killing one person isn't that important; I can kill someone who looks like you. I care more about fear than actual murder. Even if I don't catch you, once I know your face you are a fugitive and pretty much off the grid. In this case technology means even less to a government trying to stamp out a subversive movement.

I agree the colors are distracting

So there are no computerised surveillance programs that:
- collect mass data on everyone
- that allow that mass data to be fully analysed when someone comes to the attention of the government
- do key word searches for everything that goes across the internet (and create alerts for same)
- do the same key words searches for phone intercepts (and create alerts for same)
- allow the instant recognition of persons of interest by a computer (linked to CCTV facial recognition, which I've already explained goes way beyond what any human can do)
- allow the instant tracking of persons of interest (GPS in phones and Facial Recognition tracking over CCTV)
- and all of these can't be integrated?

You may in a deluded world think that doesn't allow both effectiveness and efficiencies. But that is all that is - deluded.

Which I've already acknowledged, and explained the flaw in this, in terms of my question.

You must be skim reading

Ok... I accept that I am "deluded" and that I probably have some ulterior motive. Other people here think I am a "moron" and an misogynist ... I won't argue with you on any of these points.

I am asking for a rational discussion.... let's assume that the government has all of these capabilities. So what?

Could you explain how the government would use these capabilities to significantly change the current struggle with subversive groups? I agree there will be "efficiencies" (i.e. they can arrest people more quickly). Keyword searches are pretty much useless since terrorists are already smart enough not to talk to their bomb makers over the phone.

I am skeptical there will be any significant impact on a government's ability to deal with subversives.