[carapace]

I don't think the surveillance systems can be put back in the bottle. The technology is always getting cheaper and the economic and political benefits are clear.

If you accept that premise, I think we have to develop systems that are humane and self-referential.

[PavlovsCat]

Humane constant surveillance is an oxymoron. Surveillance has a chilling effect on even just developing as thinking person, so, if you accept the premise (for which there is no actual hard reason), you can have a humane system, maybe, but no humans in it.

Even good thoughts sometimes require incubation in private. Mass surveillance restricts learning, communication, and down the road thinking, to such a degree, it's like outlawing books with more than 10 pages. Humans as we cherish them today -- ones with agency and spontaneity -- cannot exist in such conditions, meaningful social progress will stop.

[carapace]

Let me be clear that I am not advocating for constant ubiquitous surveillance. Only I don't see a way to avoid it happening. There may be a severe disruption in civilization what with the climate and all, but one day "there will be lemon-soaked paper napkins."

At best you can try to limit who has the surveillance tech, but to do that you have to have the surveillance tech, eh? The problem is circular.

So, since we cannot (I believe) do without the surveillance, can we remove the chilling effect?

For example, in Star Trek the computer always knew where everyone was (unless the script called for a mysterious disappearance) and no one felt stifled, eh?

[dmix]

We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions.

I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge.

Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basically defeats the whole purpose.

[staplers]

The founding fathers literally said we have to use lethal violence against those who want to restrict our freedom in this exact scenario.

Take that as you will. Their method worked.

[clubm8]

>We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions.

Do you have a citation for that claim?

There are vast[1] systems in place that violate laws and norms, so much so the IETF has labeled pervasive monitoring as an "attack"[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258

[dmix]

None of the things you linked to use the traditional warrant system. Particularly the whole FISA system and our terrorist laws here in Canada which sidestepped criminal courts entirely.

[clubm8]

not really sure what your point is so maybe you can clarify: are you saying it's ok to have a separate type of warrant for terrorists?

"traditional warrant system" is not a legal term. FISA warrants are warrants. Highly problematic, but warrants.

You may be interested in reading about how even FISA felt the NSA overstepped:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d7axey/this-is-the-secret...

[carapace]

How do the good guys ensure that the bad guys aren't abusing the tech without using it themselves?

[PavlovsCat]

> I don't see a way to avoid it happening

Civil society outnumbers spooks by how much, and who needs who, who is paying for who? Simply withdrawing support and tax money could end it rather quickly.

I can't tell you how to organize people to do that, but it could actually just happen anytime, just a fluke, everybody wakes up in the morning and thinks enough is enough. High-tech requires constant, expensive maintenance, It's not like, say, a giant stone structure you can leave unattended for a few years or even decades.

[carapace]

> who needs who

We need them. That's why we pay them.

> everybody wakes up in the morning and thinks enough is enough.

And then? Do they tear down the machines and all the "spooks" are tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail? How do the farm animals know the pigs are not becoming humans? ("Animal Farm" reference, in case it's not clear.) How do you know bad guys aren't building and using spook-tech?

For example, do the drug cartels voluntarily give up their gear in this scenario?

[PavlovsCat]

> And then? Do they tear down the machines and all the "spooks" are tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail?

How is that relevant? I refuted the claim that nothing can be done.

[carapace]

For the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and you're right: ubiquitous surveillance is a genie that can be re-bottled.

You still aren't addressing my main point: How do we know, going forward, that no one is rubbing that lamp? Someone has to guard the lamp, eh?

Unless you're postulating some sort of post-historical world-wide Golden Age (which I am down to discuss!) there are still going to be people smart enough and wicked enough to use tech to spy and connive, etc.

[andrerm]

Governments and corporations will happily have majority of society not thinning and just following

[PavlovsCat]

Yeah, but not many persons in them would want it, and no person in the world would be exempt from it. It could very well be that even though everybody would be kinda unhappy, we wouldn't know why, or that it could be different, we might not have the words for our discomfort, etc.

But I completely agree that a world without human agency wouldn't mean it would be a dead world. It could be bustling with activity, but the individual agents could still be very repressed or outright empty, automatons if you will.

When I speculate about such extreme extrapolations, the one ray of hope I have is that we might colonize the galaxy, and something could gets away, by accident, be it people or just organic matter. But until then it could be a very long and very dark stretch.

Of course, that's assuming the universe isn't teeming with life anyway, in which case I don't think even the supermegaborg could conquer all of it. I'm just worried about our place in it, if we get to experience it or not, how and as who. FWIW I genuinely am, it's not just as a hyperbolic argument against mass surveillance (in combination with automation and military robotics, I would add).