Libertarians are nothing more than luddites, right?

faethor said:
I'm with Robert, recording by private citizens, private companies, and likely public entities is inevitable. I'm all for fighting against it. But, I think where the true fight is in retention length, access to, and use of the recordings themselves. Should the data be created, how can that data be used? It's a serious question that must be addressed as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is where the discussion should be. We're going to be recorded whether we like it or not so the discussion should be more around individual liberties and rights, in my opinion. The future looks a little scary when it comes to surveillance and I doubt very much if the situation can be rectified. At least not in our lifetimes.

You often hear the asinine phrase, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to worry about". Well, in my opinion, the only way we (and when I say we, I mean society in general) can truly ameliorate what's coming is is do have some serious, evidence and logic based discussion about what "wrong" means.

To throw up one rather obvious example, it'll become increasingly difficult for people to indulge in proscribed substances without being recorded by *someone*. Now if someone wants to indulge in something which happens to be illegal yet harms no one else, the most important issue shouldn't be about punishing them. It shouldn't even be asking why it's the business of anyone else. Rather, it should be about why it's proscribed in the first place. Until we can address these issues, the baw's burst.

I'm not particularly optimistic but some serious and radical discussion around what is and isn't something to be ashamed of or prosecuted for is the only long term hope. Railing against surveillance itself is tilting at windmills in my opinion and a needless diversion.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Which is not really the same thing as surveillance. Surveillance is using those cameras, microphones, GPS phones etc to put together a coherent picture of what any person is doing.
Click to expand...

That's one definition of it. However, my original point was more that, increasingly, almost every aspect of our lives is going to be recorded by someone or something. Surveillance wasn't perhaps the best choice of word but it's close enough, in my opinion.

It's kind of like keeping a detailed diary versus having the government be allowed to read your diary without a warrant and a very good reason to do so. Just because you are recorded shouldn't mean that everything that was recorded becomes available for the government or intelligence agencies or private companies to go on a fishing expedition looking for people who may damage their interests.
Click to expand...

True but surveillance equipment itself is going to become so intrinsic to daily life that to assume that this can somehow exclude governments is to be a tad naiive.
 
Robert said:
True but surveillance equipment itself is going to become so intrinsic to daily life that to assume that this can somehow exclude governments is to be a tad naiive.
Click to expand...
Governments write and enforce the laws. We are, should we chose to resume the responsibility, the owners of and the ones served by our governments. We can tell them what the law should be (provided we can elect good people). Now admittedly that too sounds naiive because at least 50% of the population are ignorant lazy idiots. Of course, I'm being generous.
 
Robert said:
You often hear the asinine phrase, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've nothing to worry about".
Click to expand...
Everybody is doing something wrong. The laws are so complex and contradictory it is impossible to be in compliance with all of them. That means that if someone wants to prosecute you then they can, with sufficient surveillance, find enough crimes you have committed to put you away for a good long time or at least cost you ridiculous amounts of time and money defending yourself - which is just as good usually.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Governments write and enforce the laws. We are, should we chose to resume the responsibility, the owners of and the ones served by our governments. We can tell them what the law should be (provided we can elect good people). Now admittedly that too sounds naiive because at least 50% of the population are ignorant lazy idiots. Of course, I'm being generous.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm in complete agreement here. I just don't think the fact that we are going to be increasingly monitored is the aspect where we can make any meaningful difference. The laws we should be looking to change are not so much the ones concerning "I don't want a camera recording me," rather "I don't want to have to worry about a camera recording me."
 
Russian drivers have cameras (I assume their phones) on their cars so they have proof of police abuse if it happens. That's the real secret to surveillance: let the government know you are looking at THEM
 
cecilia said:
Russian drivers have cameras (I assume their phones) on their cars so they have proof of police abuse if it happens. That's the real secret to surveillance: let the government know you are looking at THEM
Click to expand...
In the US the police take your camera and beat you up and/or charge you with a felony for filming them (even though the Supreme Court says that citizens have the right).
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
In the US the police take your camera and beat you up and/or charge you with a felony for filming them (even though the Supreme Court says that citizens have the right).
Click to expand...
I'll be there taking pictures of the cops beating up others for having cameras
 
More scariness in today's Guardian that chimes in with my take on the way things are heading:
We're constantly monitored on the internet by hundreds of companies -- both familiar and unfamiliar. Everything we do there is recorded, collected, and collated – sometimes by corporations wanting to sell us stuff and sometimes by governments wanting to keep an eye on us.


Ephemeral conversation is over. Wholesale surveillance is the norm. Maintaining privacy from these powerful entities is basically impossible, and any illusion of privacy we maintain is based either on ignorance or on our unwillingness to accept what's really going on.

It's about to get worse, though. Companies such as Google may know more about your personal interests than your spouse, but so far it's been limited by the fact that these companies only see computer data. And even though your computer habits are increasingly being linked to your offline behaviour, it's still only behaviour that involves computers.





The Internet of Things refers to a world where much more than our computers and cell phones is internet-enabled. Soon there will be internet-connected modules on our cars and home appliances. Internet-enabled medical devices will collect real-time health data about us. There'll be internet-connected tags on our clothing. In its extreme,everything can be connected to the internet. It's really just a matter of time, as these self-powered wireless-enabled computers become smaller and cheaper.


Soon everything we do, both online and offline, will be recorded and stored forever. The only question remaining is who will have access to all of this information, and under what rules.
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/16/internet-of-things-privacy-google

-EDIT-
More form the same writer:
http://www.schneier.com
 
When it comes to information the Gov has difficult road to determine. The example from my local area is the St.Cloud paper had an editorial about how much money the Local Gov uses and how it should be more frugal. In the exact same issue there was another editorial where the author wanted to walk into Local Gov, request all emails with his name in the to/from or body and have that immediately. Now let's just imagine that guy bought his farm when he is 20 and at the age of 70 is requesting all emails about him ever, and demands it immediately. What do you think the email storage system will look like to save and query 50 years of emails at a moment's notice. It is, of course, technically possible. But, how frugal of an approach is that?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
In the US the police take your camera and beat you up and/or charge you with a felony for filming them (even though the Supreme Court says that citizens have the right).
Click to expand...

or they refuse to let you have the dash cam videos showing three cops telling you that you've committed no crime and yet they sit in front of ur special sign about the catholic rape club down the street... you know... serving and protecting...the rape club...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top