Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: omtzIuy.gif (3MB, 400x224px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 400x224px
Tried /pol/ but without luck. I want to talk about Mass-Surveillance. I'm ready for it and I don't mind being observed as long as the laws adapt to avoid unjust cases.
I will go into some of the common arguments I hear:
It is true your personal privacy will be compromised officially to a certain degree but I want to highlight some facts here: you're already unofficially being observed almost everywhere, not by the government but private security companies and they have to obey the laws only on second degree.
I feel that some people gravely misunderstand the use and misuse of personal privacy and it's dangers on public security. Again I'm ready to lay my life open if it means catching more criminals, and I'm talking about violent crimes, no soft BS.
The police has a huge problem justifying every single action they make nowadays. We are at the point where people are questioning the very sense of a executive force, which is ridiculous imho. A functioning society needs police. Now don't get me wrong, my idea of a modernized police is very different in a few ways, first and most easy: every single officer has to be strapped with a bodycam and besides blurred faces and identities (out of safety reasons) the public must have access to all of the uncut material. We are at the point where the prohibition for police to film a situation (like in my country) is hurting them more than helping. Second, the recruiting process can be softened because the bodycam obligation automates much of the controlling mechanisms and relieves the police workload dramatically, it would however expose many bad apples.
Smart algorithms would pre-process all data mined by the hours of raw material to guarantee a non-corrupt handling of evidence.
I think we sadly have to choose between a surveillance state or anarchy because the justice system is flawed in its roots.
pic related, the peaceful power of observation. I'm convinced that in some cases a camera can have more of an effect than a gun.
>>
>>8476779
How is this even remotely related to any facet of STEM? This isn't even philosophy.
>>
>>8476779
Read Brave New World. Then come back here.
-ps Anarchist/Discordian Pope here.
>>
>>
4chan is a perfect example of a functioning stable anarchy. What you describe as anarchy is inaccurate.
Now imagine if instead of every post being labeled "anonymous" it was labeled with your name, street, address, and phone number. THAT would be true chaos.
>>
>>
>>8477248
whats your alternative then?
>>
>>8476779
>Smart algorithms would pre-process all data mined by the hours of raw material to guarantee a non-corrupt handling of evidence.
>smart
>non-corrupt
>wrought by mortals
>>
Look up:
>XKeyscore
>PRISM
If you use any large mainstream websites(Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, Etc.) then your already under surveillance and your information is already in an NSA database in some secret location.
Anarchism, although a good concept on paper will lead to chaos as factions will slowly form and certain individuals will attempt to rise to power and promise a good life. Authoritarianism, on the other hand guarantees the safety of everyone, but at the cost of your freedom and privacy.
A good concept would be a government with low surveillance with extremely good programs and screenings to weed out potentially dangerous individuals while allowing freedom such as the ability to build and grow what you want while still keeping the peace.
Also, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you took this test and posted your results:
>politicalcompass.org
>>
>>8477319
>Social engineering.
>Engineering, so ST(E)M, right?
No, it is akin to psychology and philosophy and should be relegated to >>>/lit/ or >>>/his/.
>Security technology involving computers
That belongs on >>>/g/.
>I tried on /pol/.
/Pol/ isn't about serious political discourse, it is poorly veiled satire, driven by the collective desire for affirmation of contrarian edge.
>>8477323
>What's your alternative then?
There are countless approaches as humans are unpredictable and their behaviour impossible to accurately quantify.
Though, as one measure: elevate surveillance in 'problem areas' and stop trying to fix non-issuses in 'moderate' or 'sedate' areas. - Fun fact: not everyone wants to riot.
Also, the law is only enforceable upon the basis of the ability to enforce it. Blanket global coverage would make it unenforceable, making the surveillance and law redundant. Possibly, even leading to anarchy as it weakens the state and breeds resentment and dissent.
>BTFO.
/thread
>>
File: safety not guaranteed.jpg (12KB, 404x125px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 404x125px
>>8477336
>guarantees the safety of everyone
I'd argue that too much information is toxic to the peace keepers. Information overload. With all details about everything on everyone how do you know what's important or relevant? 9/11 for instance, they had ALL the information they needed to prevent it. FBI admitted this mistake. Having information does not guarantee anything.
In fact once that information is obtained it needs to be protected and guarded from those who would wish to steal it and do harm with it. In this regard having too much information is a liability that puts every person at risk.
>>
>>8477336
I'm a communist pig sorry
but in the world I imagine questions liked that could not be asked anymore.
Surveillance needs to be automated and open sourced as well as publicly available. Only identity should be protected as far as possible.
one should be allowed to know what everybody else does.
one should not be allowed to know what somebody else does.
>>
>>8477383
>too much information is toxic to the peace keepers.
only if the information is handled by humans.
algorithms are now secure, precise and sophisticated enough to do this job without making life threatening errors
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3