| So at a micro level, this may seem like a good idea. I believe we need considering such activities in a larger context. For example, there have been multiple laws passed/proposed in various countries because "think of the children" or "terrorism". The Patriot Act was written before 9/11 and passed in a hurry. To the point, where the original architect of the act now regrets his actions [1]. Or the fact that the act is now overwhelming used for prosecuting drug activities instead of its original intended purpose [2]. > "Weather the surveillance is manned or unmanned isn't of ethical concern" I would disagree with this statement. It's the difference between a police stakeout and them planting a webcam [3]. I repeatedly stress at work to people involved with big data projects that want to advance the notion of a data lake. "Just because we can does not mean that we should". I'm not convinced that the legal route is sufficient to check such activity and is why I'm a proponent of systems that prevent bad actors from intercepting (zero knowledge?) instead of "we promise not to look" solutions. I'll end with: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." [1] http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/patriot-act-author-meets-w... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/... [3] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na... |
I think all of us on HN are familiar with the qualitative effects of "big data" both in general and as it pertains to surveillance. I hope we're all sophisticated enough to realize that the issues at hand revolve around scale, probable cause, and data retention/mining, rather than the canard of whether the platform involved was manned or unmanned.