Is Privacy necessary to Democracy?

I did this in my original few posts.

I would accept your scepticism if it came with you acknowledging realities and your did a projection with explanation. No one persons view is correct, and even my view is a hypothetical projection on the way things are going. They may not play out the way I project.

I just reread your posts.

Even assuming that the government has all of the capabilities you outline, you don't explain how the government would use these capabilities to significantly change the current struggle with subversive groups

You would like to think that we could use magic AI software to eliminate terrorists, or child pornographers, or meth dealers....

It doesn't work that way. Human beings are complex and resourceful. All of the computerized technology in the world doesn't fix that.

So, what's the counterbalancing benefit to our declining privacy?

Just for the record... I am not against privacy (well, I am a moderate with a complex range of opinions). What I am pushing back on here is what I see as a one-sided attack on technology that exaggerates the capabilities and their effects.

Specific benefits to "declining" privacy include...

1) The credit rating system is a bedrock of our economy (and the reason our interest rates are far lower than in developing countries).

2) We make connection in dating sites and social media.

3) We get free media... we don't pay the rather sophisticated software systems we use from email to mapping software.

4) In return, American businesses get targeted access to customers who will likely buy their products.

5) Facial recognition is making my trip through TSA quicker... I step up to the camera and I am through. My son unlocks his phone by looking at it.

6) My town has a car that collects traffic fines by driving a camera equipped car passed parked cars. It collects money for my town with fewer city employees.

There are probably hundreds of these. Most of the "declining privacy" is consensual. No one is forcing you to use Facebook.

If you want me to list more, maybe you can suggest the way that privacy is declining and I will tell you the societal benefit.

I ended a relationship a couple of years back. I started a new relationship recently.

Google can now use facial recognition to find me all of the photos of my old girlfriend. I was really impressed with this capability (which could be useful if I wanted to avoid any awkward discussions with my new girlfriend).

I also use the Google Maps timeline feature quite often. It tells me exactly where I have been every day... a blue line on a map shows me the path I took. A couple of times I have used this to remember where a store was, or where I was on a given day. I do remember to turn this off when I visit my drug dealer.

Same complaint for you saying they don't change anything - you don't explain why you think it wouldn't - in terms of how the use of them wouldn't change anything.

However, on my side - the uses should have been obvious:

- identify dissenters through automated keyword alerts from the internet; or
- identify dissenters through their involvement with forums / websites that promote dissent, with auto keyword searches to make things easier (if it is a 'moderate' site)

- Identify their IP & ISP, and obtain details (not exactly necessary at this point if user maintains same browser fingerprint)

- if mass data surveillance, solidify how much a threat they pose through automated key word searches of their history,
- if no mass data, obtain metadata from ISP's and identfy platforms they use for communication with others
- obtain from those platforms (presuming you already put in place agreements with them so that they can operate in your country) their contacts
- conduct automated searches of their contacts, and see if their contacts are saying similar things (presumably through more detailed search parameters)
- etc

If concern still exists:
- check their bank accounts for suspicious activities (this is easier if you can do it online, rather than through search warrants etc)
- check their GPS movements to see if they are meeting up with other marked dissenters, or visiting places frequented by other known dissenters.
- if GPS isn't available for this, then check phone towers. wifi connective and card purchases

Etc

But as I said - most of that should have been easily able to be ascertained with a little thought about how they work in practicality.

And all of this can be done without leaving a desk (up to the point where an intercept is necessary, and then other surveillance kicks in). Traditional Surveillance cannot be done without leaving a desk. This of course isn't saying that traditional investigative techniques or surveillance aren't useful - there will always be a need for the human element.

You don't have very much respect for the intelligence of "dissenters". If someone in North Korea is stupid enough to post their hatred of Kim Jong Un, the technology isn't the problem.

This isn't the case, and I already explained the issues and difficulties previously.

But in any case, nor do I think it should only be the intelligent, skilled, and well informed who should be able to dissent if a democratic government is overthrown.

I don't get your argument... under a repressive government the question of "who should be able to dissent" is rather moot.

I don't think the rights of stupid ill-informed people to dissent are helped by a lack of technology.

ummm....do you at all read what you are objecting to? Or remember conversations previously about AI and technology in general? I am supportive of both technology and AI. And my question is posed purely in relation to one aspect of technology, and its uses in one specific context....and this is really, really, really obvious. So excuse me if I think your generalisation does not ring entirely true at all.

And... cell phone data is being used to inform us about covid-19. There are "heat maps" to measure how many people are social distancing.

It is interesting data.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18190-5

No Max. As you continue to ignore - oppressive regimes do get overthrown - under current conditions (which are usually in third world countries). And my central question relates to what happens in a connected country, with a truly centralised surveillance system, if the democratic government gets overthrown...would they be able to overthrow their dictator, as can still occur in a third world country?

My answer to your central question is "yes".

In my opinion, the technology does not substantially change the ability of a group of subversives to overthrow a government.

See, as an opinion, that is fine.

It comes with little argument against the operational use / benefits of centralised computer surveillance, but that is fine.

In your opinion, if a democratic government used "centralised computer surveillance" would it be more likely to stay in power?

If this technology is as good as you think it is at fighting subversive groups... I would think that would be an argument in favor of a "good" government to use it.

Another question I answered in my first few posts - history shows all governments have eventually fallen (even if it takes hundreds of years); all have become corrupt over time (at some time prior to the fall).

Of the two, corruption seems the most likely to subvert democracy.

So how does "centralised computer surveillance" change anything?

Our current system of democracy isn't perfect, but I kind of like it. I would like to keep it in place and keep our current system of government in power.

That would be a good question if you weren't just looking for an argument. And it took you long enough to get there. How about you answer it for me. AFter all, you will only see what you want to see.

I just recalled another efficiency in tracking - drones. I'm not talking about the high level drones, but the low level drones that are commercially available, and how they can be used as platforms (and how they are ever improving)

I was at a tech company, who were talking about their drone technology that they are developing - using drone lasers to map the environment on the fly, with the end goal of drones being able to fly themselves for the purpose of search / mapping / mining. Apparently it could already fly through a forest without touching even tree leaves.

I asked them if they were worried about the military applications of such technology, and it seems they were, without directly saying so (they skimmed around the issue, saying that their interest was in the mapping abilities - coupled with a somewhat worried look / tone)

Of course once such a technology is fully viable, if you put:
- facial recognition; and or
- automatic number plate recognition
into it such a system, it adds another layer of efficiencies / effectiveness into tracking people and/or their vehicles - reducing manpower needed to track even further.

Presumably of course, they would initially only be used for high value targets. What they do mean is that targets can be tracked beyond CCTV systems (which aren't currently everywhere)