[ArboriaInstitut]

> It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streaming their lives.

This all sounds equally as feasible as simply rolling back the surveillance in the first place. The whole point of these systems is to subject the hoi polloi to constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic. Why in the world would they agree to do that to themselves as well?

[carapace]

I'm saying that the economics will drive adoption regardless of political structures. The folks in power will be surveilled too, whether they like it or not (if nothing else they have to surveil each other!) The more power you have, the more people study you.

The "constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic" is a side-effect. And frankly, we should be so lucky that it works (when it works.) I personally think the time for deciding things by violence-- any violence --has passed.

In re: political power, we'll see how it plays out in different systems. In China the question is, Will CCP members be subject to the Social Credit System?

In democracies we should be able to reshape our systems to take advantage of modern technology to make boring, functioning governing bodies that "just work", but we have to get from here to there.