Technology and Our Core Values

[Crazy Eddie]

Newtype Alpha,

The government wants to collect this information for a simple reason. The more accurate information they have, the more accurate a profile they can construct of you. If I have a profile that's 100% accurate, I can predict everything you will do.

Except that the only information they can collect from TECHNICAL sources is junk information. When the government wants to spy on people to develop a profile on their behavior, their preferred method is either direct or vicarious surveillance: a government informant is either watching you or coercing people into telling him what you're up to.

Even in this case, it's less about predicting what you're going to do and more about understanding what you believe and who you know and what type of behaviors you are likely to agree with.

I should say, depending on your family background, you would do well to issue a FOIA request for your parents' FBI file. If they were the type of people to draw Federal attention (like my mother was) they probably know more about her than you do.

And the government is developing all sorts of algorithms...

They can develop all the algorithms they want, it doesn't change the fact that SIGNAL intelligence is one of the most limited forms of information gathering in the intelligence game. It can give you an idea of what to look for and who to investigate, but only from a limited sample size of potential suspects in the first place.

Put that another way: there are all kinds of efficient ways to wiretap a small town to figure out how many people in that town may be terrorists (assuming you know for a fact that at least ONE of them is). As the population of that town increases, the usefulness of a blanket wiretap rapidly decreases, and any algorithm you can use to sift through the thousands of miscellaneous conversations boils down to reducing the number of suspects, and then you're still forced to place thousands of people under surveillance anyway. If this town is actually a major city with a population of 3 million people, you can just plain forget it.

If you've read about IARPA/ARDA's ACQUAINT program you would know that.

I've read enough about these programs to know what dismal failures they are destined to become.

Knowledge is power; absolute knowledge is absolute power.

And information gathered from the internet is neither knowledge, nor absolute knowledge. It's equivalent to cataloging the bumper stickers in a particular neighborhood to try and pinpoint the location of the local communist party.

 

[Myasishchev]

iirc in US law, there is no right to privacy. There is no legislation preventing the authorities from monitoring every moment of your life, in any area of your life, should they decide one day for whatever reason they wanted to.

Of course there is--the Fourth Amendment.

Which applies to illegal search and seizures, not some douchebag reading your browser cache to try and figure out how to more effectively spam you.

No, but the constitution doesn't regulate private actors (except, maybe--I'd have to look it up, and ain't gonna right now--those operating on behalf of the government and under color of law). Private spying is usually still going to be tortious.

 

[Jadzia]

iirc in US law, there is no right to privacy.

Of course there is--the Fourth Amendment.

So there is.

Is this amendment not adequate for CuttingEdge?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

As important as the issues of privacy and "net neutrality" are, technology poses a more fundamental threat to our values and way of life, and that is economic. We are conditioned to think that technology=progress and that such progress is always beneficial.

Consider though, the role that technology has had in replacing human labor. One can argue that allowing one worker to do the work of three (increased productivity) is good, but what if you're one of the two workers out of a job because of it?

We are nearing, if not already at, a "tipping point" where technology simply put will/has rendered a substantial proportion of the population as essentially unneeded and unnecessary from a labor point of view.

Given that our social values tie access to resources to a person's labor contribution, that is and will become an ever increasing problem.

 

[Deks]

I think technological advancement is extremely important for one thing and has to be done at a much faster pace.
We are already lagging behind due to the fact the system is based on money to begin with, and people in power who are of the older generation, or were simply lead to think in a specific pattern, don't want to advance society for it's own benefit.
They mostly look after their own benefit.

The government also has to be taken down several (or much more) notches in order to 'level the playing field'.

The problem is with the general population that gave power to the government.
Unless they are made aware of the fact that they are the ones who are actually capable of changing things on a massive scale ... well, the ones in power will simply continue to grow in power until they make most of the general population as docile and as gullible as the best of the sheep (which can apply to a vast number of the general population now).

The government would ideally be there in order to further the needs of society it works for.
In reality, this seldom happens so the people in power can appease the general population and remain where they are.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I think technological advancement is extremely important for one thing and has to be done at a much faster pace.
We are already lagging behind due to the fact the system is based on money to begin with, and people in power who are of the older generation, or were simply lead to think in a specific pattern, don't want to advance society for it's own benefit.
They mostly look after their own benefit.

Then advancing technology will not help. It will only hasten the pace of collapse.

 

[JiNX-01]

Privacy is important, then one could argue if you have nothing to hide, don't worry...I worry about my dignity has a human being...when someone invades your privacy, they take away part of that dignity. It doesn't matter if it is the government spying on your every move or your neighbor secretly videotaping you in your home...you lose privacy, you lose some of that dignity.

[edit] It may not be written anywhere...but dignity is the right of all humans.

Exactly. That's why the whole "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" argument is B.S.

 

[Deks]

I think technological advancement is extremely important for one thing and has to be done at a much faster pace.
We are already lagging behind due to the fact the system is based on money to begin with, and people in power who are of the older generation, or were simply lead to think in a specific pattern, don't want to advance society for it's own benefit.
They mostly look after their own benefit.

Then advancing technology will not help. It will only hasten the pace of collapse.

If we are talking about a collapse of a system as we know it, then I'm all for it.
It should go down taking into consideration just how inefficient the said system can be and how many lives were destroyed due to the way the system was implemented.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I think technological advancement is extremely important for one thing and has to be done at a much faster pace.
We are already lagging behind due to the fact the system is based on money to begin with, and people in power who are of the older generation, or were simply lead to think in a specific pattern, don't want to advance society for it's own benefit.
They mostly look after their own benefit.

Then advancing technology will not help. It will only hasten the pace of collapse.

If we are talking about a collapse of a system as we know it, then I'm all for it.
It should go down taking into consideration just how inefficient the said system can be and how many lives were destroyed due to the way the system was implemented.

That will lead to even MORE unnecessary suffering. Ordinary people should not suffer because of the problems of a system.

 

[Deks]

Why would it cause more suffering?
Isn't it sometimes better to go with a clean start?

Also, explain to me the reason why would the present system collapse faster with advancement of technology?
Why couldn't it be improved or even changed in the go as technology evolves?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Why would it cause more suffering?
Isn't it sometimes better to go with a clean start?

What you are suggesting is that because the 4 out of 10 people in the current system (number picked for purpose of illustration) that the answer to the suffering of the 4 is to make the other 6 suffer as well.

I reject that on principle. The answer to suffering is to ease the suffering, not to make more people suffer in a sick, vindictive solidarity.

Also, explain to me the reason why would the present system collapse faster with advancement of technology?

Because the current advance is part of the REASON the system is collapsing. If you are going to tie access to resources for life to labor (as the current systme does), it is incumbent upon you not to take away opportunities to labor.

 

[Defiant]

Unfortunely this is not the case, under the Patriot Act repersentives from the gov't can enter your home without suspecion or warrent for a "Sneak & Peek", check out your belonging, your computer; etc; and until recently did not even need to tell you. As it stands now they can inform you months down the road. And that my friends is as far as their accountablity goes. If any one is intrested in seeing the extent of gov't powers, some would characterize "abuse".


The Shatinator

There is NO exception to the warrant requirement in the Patriot Act. Even a "sneak and peek" is a warrant. There is an extrememly limited provision for Foreign Intelligence warrantless wiretaps (hence the Bush program), but its use is extremely limited, and the data collected may not be used for any other purpose.

If you're a non-USPER (US Person), which means you are neither a citizen or a lawful resident, that warrant may be obtained by the FISA court, but it's still a warrant signed by a judge, and it's damn hard to get in any event.

The reality is that the government has regulated itself out of relevancy. The government had far more power in 1977 before FISA than it does now. In my 8 years with the government, I've seen it limit itself further and further, to the point where even obtaining a credit report (which your credit card company does routinely) is practically an acto of congress.

Corporations control all of the info - have you not noticed that Google reads your email? Not exactly, of course, but if you have a Gmail account, the Google bots read emails you send to target advertising to you.

Don't believe me? Try sending someone a message where you talk about FBI, FBI HQ, J Edgar Hoover, etc. Then watch the next set of advertisements in your Gmail frame.

Having just done this, I was rather unnerved by what happened next.

The internet has virtually obsoleted governments. Governments sit around all day hand-wringing (dems and repubs alike) over their own actions, while allowing gross violations of privacy in the private sector.

Has anyone been following the Google-China wrangling? Anyone wonder why it's so important? There is no entity in the government that has 1/10th the info on you that Google has.

Google knows that you searched for those naughty pictures you shouldn't have. Google knows all about that email you sent to your mistress. Google knows what movie you checked out reviews for, what sex toys your wife shops for, and every IP address you've used to check your email.

And google has no limits on how it secures or uses that info, but it can even refuse to give it to the government under a subpoena for a criminal investigation, and really not worry.

Why do China and Google hate each other? Google has info China wants, and it refuses to cooperate with China's laws - and it largely gets away with it.

I don't mean to pick on Google, but they're an obvious target. Western governments have regulated themselves into a corner. The EU and the US both effectively criminailize any warrantless computer intrusion - even by their own governments.

Russia and China do not.

But even Russa and China cannot do anything to massive international corporations - except attempt to steal their data, of course, which they do.

However, you can be sure that multinational giants like Microsoft and Google don't play by rules - even where they exist.

If they don't like the local laws, they just operate from a different country.

I'm not even passing judgement on this - it's just a fact of life we need to begin understanding. For better or worse, the Internet has put governments and countries in danger of becoming obsolete.

 

[Brent]

The Internet has really mucked things up about privacy. But, it isn't the only medium. Think of cameras that are now installed in every major city, it is hard to go anywhere without being recorded these days.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Darkwing Duck,

Then advancing technology will not help. It will only hasten the pace of collapse.

In the context in which you replied you're actually right


Brent,

Think of cameras that are now installed in every major city, it is hard to go anywhere without being recorded these days.

Correct

 

[STR]

I think technological advancement is extremely important for one thing and has to be done at a much faster pace.
We are already lagging behind due to the fact the system is based on money to begin with, and people in power who are of the older generation, or were simply lead to think in a specific pattern, don't want to advance society for it's own benefit.
They mostly look after their own benefit.

Then advancing technology will not help. It will only hasten the pace of collapse.

If we are talking about a collapse of a system as we know it, then I'm all for it.
It should go down taking into consideration just how inefficient the said system can be and how many lives were destroyed due to the way the system was implemented.

What 'system'? You act like society was programmed by some evil illuminatti for the purpose of ruining everything. The world we have today is the sum of billions of people and millennia of time. Other ways of making civilization work have been tried, and guess what,their absence is more telling than any word I can use. Why? Human nature. It is human to be greedy, and what society has built is something that harnesses this rather than fighting it, as fighting will result in failure.

People who want a revolution are short-sighted people that would risk the population of the earth so they can test their (inevitably doomed) personal pet theory on it. Stop trying to tear down the sum creation of humanity. Don't think you're so wise as to think you're smarter then all who came before. Maybe settle on adding your own little mark to the vast work that's already been done.

 

[Deks]

Programmed by some evil Illiuminati for the purpose of ruining everything?
You are over-exaggerating.
A revolution?
I'm merely saying the system as it was established created way too much trouble for everybody, and continues to do so.
Look at the state the world is in today.

Ah yes, change of the system on such a scale if often labelled as 'short-sighted' because people are afraid.
Disruption to their lives is not wanted ... so long as certain things don't touch you, you can't be bothered with them and so forth.

People want things to change and yet they expect this to happen by doing nothing and relying on people in power to do it for them (which is unrealistic taking into consideration what kind of people got a hold of power in the past).
Promises are being made and broken at every turn, and they stall for change as much as possible because they cannot adapt fast enough.
It takes years to accomplish even a small bit of progress, and then after that, they take 2 steps back.

Taking into consideration governments are quite often ran by people who have limited interest in the welfare of their own countries or betterment of humanity and are often more concerned about their positions in the said government, not to mention profits and whatnot, well, forgive me if I'm sceptical.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

What 'system'? You act like society was programmed by some evil illuminatti for the purpose of ruining everything. The world we have today is the sum of billions of people and millennia of time. Other ways of making civilization work have been tried, and guess what,their absence is more telling than any word I can use. Why? Human nature. It is human to be greedy, and what society has built is something that harnesses this rather than fighting it, as fighting will result in failure.

People who want a revolution are short-sighted people that would risk the population of the earth so they can test their (inevitably doomed) personal pet theory on it. Stop trying to tear down the sum creation of humanity. Don't think you're so wise as to think you're smarter then all who came before. Maybe settle on adding your own little mark to the vast work that's already been done.

Then you're prepared to return to the lord/vassal system or the emperor/subject system that was the norm for most of recorded history?

Every advance in human rights and the furtherance of human dignity has been made by people who refused to accept "the way it's always been" when that way did them harm.

ALL societies are deliberate constructs.

 

[FordSVT]

Human beings shouldn't be doing manual labour. We are thinkers, we should be using our brains to create, not shovelling ditches. Society's problem isn't advancing technology replacing shitty jobs, it's society not finding other more interesting things for those people to do. You think hundreds of millions of people living on Earth in Star Trek are manual labourers by profession?

Really, would you advocate the removal of robots from the assembly line so we can replace them with people, driving up the cost of goods for everyone else and lowering everyone's overall purchasing power in the process?

A lot of these thoughts are dangerously close to favouring a government planned and mandated economy. Make sure all the comrades have a job, no matter how stupid or unskilled the job is or how much they get paid. That doesn't work well, ask the USSR.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Human beings shouldn't be doing manual labour. We are thinkers, we should be using our brains to create, not shovelling ditches. Society's problem isn't advancing technology replacing shitty jobs, it's society not finding other more interesting things for those people to do. You think hundreds of millions of people living on Earth in Star Trek are manual labourers by profession?

This is the real world, not Star Trek. In the real world, if you do not labor, you do not eat as a general rule.

Really, would you advocate the removal of robots from the assembly line so we can replace them with people, driving up the cost of goods for everyone else and lowering everyone's overall purchasing power in the process?

Funny, up until about 25-30 years ago it worked quite well. In order for people to consume, they must have resources. Labor is the source of resources.

A lot of these thoughts are dangerously close to favouring a government planned and mandated economy. Make sure all the comrades have a job, no matter how stupid or unskilled the job is or how much they get paid. That doesn't work well, ask the USSR.

No one is talking about USSR central planning. The system we had worked quite well, as the USA from the late 30s through the late 70s demonstrated.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Really, would you advocate the removal of robots from the assembly line so we can replace them with people, driving up the cost of goods for everyone else and lowering everyone's overall purchasing power in the process?

Funny, up until about 25-30 years ago it worked quite well. In order for people to consume, they must have resources. Labor is the source of resources.

Human labour is much more inefficient than robot labour in certain areas - meaning human labour produces much less resources/products.
Less products translate into less wealth for the society in general and poverty for a much larger faction of it - yes, they'll be paid, but they'll barely be paid enough to manage to stay alive.

One side of this debate argues that sociesty should be stagnant/practically stagnant - historically, this was ALWAYS a bad ideea.
The other side, on the other hand, argues that society should change, but either thay have no ideea what changes should be made, or the ideeas amount to nostalgy.