[lifeisstillgood]

In a world of total surveillance, the difference between a police state and free society is who has access to the data and what laws are enforced preventing them abusing it.

The benefits of all this spy tech are great - if we manage it right. I mean telephone tapping is an example

[palata]

A valid ethical question is: will this technology do more good than bad? Or put differently: given the bad implications this technology will likely have, is it worth it?

Example: "I have made this technology that makes me (and only me) earn 1 cent per day when managed right. Bad actors can use it to hack into hospitals and ransom them".

Wouldn't you agree that this hypothetical technology is probably not worth it?

In my opinion, it's not acceptable to say "I created a technology that helps bad guys be even worse, but I don't have any responsibility at all because I don't personally ask them to be bad guys".

Of course sometimes it's harder than one may think a posteriori: sometimes it was not clear while developping the technology that it would have bad applications.

[lifeisstillgood]

So the cost-benefit analysis approach is quite correct - and my personal take is that “surveillance technology” is another way of saying “external accurate memory” - everything I say or do, everyone I talk to and interact with.

We like having dash-cams because they make other peoples bad driving clear to the judge / insurance agent. Something like that for all aspects of your life seems good and that’s just the personal point. Once we start looking at how to aggregate medical data and provide it to researchers - I mean some doctor has come up with stick on Bluetooth ECG monitors - stick on and record for 48 hours.

The problems arise when the data is used unfairly. Look this guys is (social underdog) - we can use the recorded data to prosecute him. That only gets solved when the judges recorded data shows a clear bias … and we live in a fair open democratic society

If we don’t live in such a society then yea, this technology will Almost always have more cost than benefit - but that’s not the technology.

[palata]

> and we live in a fair open democratic society

I don't reach the same conclusion when I look at all the documented privacy abuse that is happening, though.

[lynx23]

The problem are incentives. There are monetary incentives to create whatever technology you can, because you can, and thats the way you earn money. There is zero incentive to consider how your technology might be abused.

[palata]

> There is zero incentive to consider how your technology might be abused.

Ethics is that incentive.

Would you be fine getting a good salary for legally building bombs that are sold legally, knowing that they are purposely killing many innocent children? If the answer is "no", then it means that there is an incentive. You "just" need to find your line.

And I strongly believe that sometimes, the only way is to agree together on a line (through regulations), because individually we may not be strong enough. For instance I think that sending people to the ISS/Moon/Mars is an artistic performance that the world does not need. On the contrary, we invest a ton of public money into doing that, which then unlocks private companies (like SpaceX) to commoditize space, which in turn is bad for the environment. So I would vote against spending public money on this. But now if you offered me to become an astronaut in a space program, I would most definitely go. I find it interesting: I would vote against it, but given the opportunity I would do it :-).