> and social credit systems to top it off. It will happen and we can only postpone it.
What social credit systems are you talking about specifically? Maybe I live under a rock, but I haven't heard anything about something like that in EU or Europe.
What social credit systems are you talking about specifically? Maybe I live under a rock, but I haven't heard anything about something like that in EU or Europe.
All three are regularly used in sweden to deny people jobs, services and opportunities.
If you would be judged for spending money in one place over another, then it's semantics. It's effectively the same as a social credit score.
The new battleground is now the "essential" part of the GDPR, i.e. what pre-sorting is essential to arrive at a decision and what not. I guess we will see quite a few cases before the courts...
They gave me the results of their algorithm for me personally, but refused to describe the algorithm. Results were kinda non-sense, but when I wanted them deleted, they told me that I may have trouble in the future with their clients, due to lack of information on me in their systems. Probably a scare tactic, but still annoying and concerning.
Maybe not exactly the same as China's, but the "common understanding" that your internet persona must be tied to your identity, and that this identity can be scored based on a bunch of criteria. - or that how you spend your money must be trackable and traceable.
It will begin to grow out of the places that are already used this way: things like insurances, then will grow towards "securities" such as mortgages ("where do you spend money, does it look suspicious to us?"), and afterwards to "luxuries" such as air travel. Eventually nearly everything will require submission of financial documents and social profiles for nearly everything and only when that's the case: with a whole host of people wasting time on re-validation of the same information and a huge bureaucratic mess; will someone come along and give it a government sponsored name and a centralised point of access and scoring. - and it will be sold as being better than what came before, and it will be.
This is how other forms of centralised identification have grown over time, so I'm not pretending to have prescient knowledge of the future.
It's one thing to be negative, other to act like everything is determined and resistance is futile. By saying things can't possibly be changed, we make it harder to change them.
I don't disagree with the gist of your analysis; the forces you describe exist, and they work towards surveillance. They can still be opposed and curtailed in a number of ways.