Hacker News Reader

Comment by qikInNdOutReply | Hacker News Reader

I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism".

It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies to be entrusted with surveilance of the masses, to be the most useless and untrustworthy stewart of the public imagineable.

View on HN

It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it

Hard disagree. Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations. When it's misused by individuals it's usually based on information freely given. An individual might send your employer an insensitive tweet you made ten years ago but an organization can do anything from unmasking an anonymous product review for the purpose of suing you to operating a massive surveillance state to fuel a "social credit" system.

I think this is a false choice.

would you expand upon that

I’m not sure individuals -or- organizations can be fully trusted. It’s one reason for the 4th amendment, or the requirements for auditing of companies by independent accounting firms, or all sorts of laws restricting individuals, organizations and even governments in one way or another.

> Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations

Of course. There are more individuals in larger organizations :)

I think you are just making a joke, which is fine, but I would reassert the point I think the OP was making that there is a qualitative difference in the nature of the abuses committed by individuals and firms.

Unfortunately with the various moral panics going on, folks who lean towards the middle / nuanced balanced thoughts are more afraid and reluctant to put their thoughts out there. It just isn't worth the brain-width or having potential people yell at you for toeing various party lines. The death of questioning is imo one of the more disheartening things in the last 5-10 years.

To your last point, I personally skew towards being deeply suspicious of institutional power being able to have more tools to further leverage the tilt against the individual, but you're also not wrong with individuals being deeply flawed beings too.

As an anarchist, I wish we could have conversations on any topic about something other than two contrived polar opposite positions. Life is not neat dichotomies. People are just trained to take a simpleton's view of things.

No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual. Groups of individuals who claim the right to enforce their will on other individuals by means of violence (e.g. governments) can be trusted least of all.

> No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual.

That's going to depend heavily on which individual.

I think the panopticon is unavoidable (I'll expand below) so the question is how to harness it to get a humane techno-totalitarian system?

People have pointed out that "humane totalitarian" is an oxymoron, and I agree, but I think it's the challenge we face.

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 is in the context where we are all live-streaming 24/7 whether we want to or not, which is pretty much the case today at least in high-tech nations.) Police badges should be integrated with cameras, the badge IS the camera, the camera IS the badge, and if the camera is off the officer is off-duty.

Thoughts?

- - - -

I think the panopticon is unavoidable due to technological and economic considerations. The technology is only getting smaller, cheaper, lower-power, etc. and it's already ubiquitous. (See "sensing for WiFi if you really want to freak out!) Our phones already monitor and report our location in near realtime. Smart cars and traffic systems are a de facto surveillance system even for people who don't carry phones. The economic benefits are inarguable, and only going to get better.

And really, if you could trade your privacy for an end to almost all crime, isn't that worth it? Considering that you wouldn't be alone, that everyone else's privacy is gone too, it's not so bad?

None of that requires identification.

> 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?

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.

Police are, in theory, already subject to the same physical tracking by automatic license plate readers as the rest of the population. But, police are able to get a pass from other cops when they employ counter-measures to defeat the tracking, so the reality is that the tracking does not apply to them. E.g., cops foiling automatic license plate readers[1] using methods that would cause non-police to be ticketed.

And, if somehow you manage to prevent abuse like the above, laws will be passed that grant exceptions for the powerful and their enforcers[2][3]. Many of the existing laws in this category recognize that privacy is essential for personal security and safety-- but only grant that security and safety to the privileged few.

We need to enshrine a strong right to privacy in law-- attacking surveillance head on (in the US, this means a constitutional amendment, or it will be [more] vulnerable to laws/courts granting exceptions). While sympathetic, I don't think that trying to reign in surveillance through making it equitable (on paper), are going to succeed.

[1] https://www.insideedition.com/21559-investigation-finds-poli...

[2] https://www.ocregister.com/2009/11/12/special-license-plates...

[3] https://www.menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/press/menendez-book...

It seems pretty obvious that the ~~individual~~ government can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it.

> ... i find the three letter agencies to be entrusted with surveilance of the masses, to be the most useless and untrustworthy stewart of the public imagineable

What makes you think so? For example, the German government prevented a number of terror attacks by monitoring electronic chat and mail exchange.

The problem is that every democratic government is ultimately based on the idea to give some people enough power so they can govern, but not so much that they cannot be removed from power again.

That balance is not something that would remain uninfluenced by giving the executive the power to surveil the population that brings a government into power.

The German government is not a good example for well behaved governments, especially in regards to individual rights and free expression.

Fear drives surveillance ambitions and some stereotypes have some merit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com