Thread: Perfect surveillance Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030113
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
The thread on surveillance (security and freedom) made me ponder how much the crew would tolerate if surveillance were perfectly benign (absolutely no threat). Would it bother you?
When I say benign, I mean that there may be penalties for breaking the law but no more than that. And let's assume that the law is acceptable to the majority.
Again, when I say surveillance, I mean total. Like all the time, everywhere.
We are gradually getting used to street cameras and seem to ignore them for the most part but for the purposes of this discussion let's assume the network is complete with microphones, cameras, chemical sensors etc.
If we were born to it, would we tolerate it? Can we even imagine it?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
In a sense we have that already, if you believe in an omniscient, omnipresent God.
The difference between what you describe and what we have IMHO is that God has a right to his surveillance, being our maker. Plus, he is incredibly forbearing compared to human beings.
If my fellow human beings were to have even a tenth that much knowledge of me, no, it would be unbearable. And rightly so.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I haven't read whatever thread you refer yo but the idea of strangers watching me take a shower, or have sex, or even just that someone is watching me putter in my house all day, sing to myself, cry about a loss, etc, is creepy.
It's what we do to prisoners and is part of the abusive and intentional depersonalization of prison.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Absolutely not. Even Jesus needed his privacy every now and then (Mark 14:32-36).
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I've posited a form of benign, overall surveillance in fiction, where human lives are watched over by an AI. It's a voluntary arrangement, with mutual benefits.
Where AI and government surveillance diverge is in intent: the AI wants to learn, the government wants to control. And I have much less (read: none whatsoever) faith in governmental intentions than I do my fictional AI.
Of course, where perfect surveillance would be useful is of our banks and politicians. They surely have nothing to hide, so have nothing to fear.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In a sense we have that already, if you believe in an omniscient, omnipresent God.
To quote Msgr. Ronald Knox:
There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
REPLY
Dear Sir:
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
GOD.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think it was last year that two Dutch journalists did an experiment, where they were constantly filmed for two weeks, and this was streamed life on the internet.
They didn't finish the two weeks. The psychological pressure of constant surveillance was too high.
Interestingly, what they had the most problems with wasn't going to the toilet, but sleeping. I feel the same: sleeping is a very intimate thing, even more so than sex. I think this is one of the reasons why I don't sleep well on a plane.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The theme has been handled in science fiction. One of Robert Heinlein's first short stories was about it. (And in a couple hours my slow brain will oblige with the title...)
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: In a sense we have that already, if you believe in an omniscient, omnipresent God.
But the difference is that God does not enforce His laws in this life. I am talking of acceptable majority law now.
quote:
Belle Ringer I haven't read whatever thread you refer to but the idea of strangers watching me take a shower, or have sex, or even just that someone is watching me putter in my house all day, sing to myself, cry about a loss, etc, is creepy.
Would it be, if you had been born in that environment? Perhaps our forbears would have said the same thing about street camcorders.
quote:
Amanda B. Reckondwythe "needed his privacy"
In what sense is privacy needed? I am not saying I am immune to the same feelings, but why?
quote:
Brenda Clough The theme has been handled in science fiction.
I did imagine writing a story with this situation but lack the ability. Would be interested to know when your bell finally rings. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The idea has been around for years - you may want to take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Panopticon. Especially, scroll down to the section headed Criticism.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I have a complete non-belief in there being even the remotest possibility that any human beings, yet alone those who happen to have power, could produce a form of surveillance that was anywhere near "perfectly benign (absolutely no threat)", rather than the opposite. So for me it is dangerously foolhardy even to discuss whether the implications of such a delusionary concept would be theoretically anything less than horrifying. The actual result would be. It does not have within itself the capability of meeting the precondition.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I agree, Enoch. But it's a thought-experiment. In practice, of course there could never be any guarantee of benificence if humans were involved.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The concept of privacy for toilets or sex is entirely cultural. It is not at all difficult to find cultures of the past in which expectations were very different. Just go look at the toilets in Roman ruins -- defecation was a group activity there, and the WCs had six or eight holes.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
[[I've shat in several two-holers. It's a little backwoods or on the farm. A certain intimacy among friends.]]
That aside, the threat provokes me to think that problem is the opposite of 'perfect surveillance' and not Orwell's prediction at all. The problem seems to be that people take all these pictures, notes about self and videos and nobody cares to view, or bother with them at all. I think people are often desperate to be noticed and no-one ever clicks a like button.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That aside, the threat provokes me to think that problem is the opposite of 'perfect surveillance' and not Orwell's prediction at all. The problem seems to be that people take all these pictures, notes about self and videos and nobody cares to view, or bother with them at all. I think people are often desperate to be noticed and no-one ever clicks a like button.
Get some puppies ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously, in my line of work (teacher) I have often wished there were constant CCTV in classrooms. It would then be easy to show parents how their little darlings actually behave!
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
Enoch So for me it is dangerously foolhardy even to discuss..............
But one of the points I am making is that the world is already heading along that road with only a few weak voices of protest. So what exactly are the "horrifying results"?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
shadeson: But one of the points I am making is that the world is already heading along that road with only a few weak voices of protest. So what exactly are the "horrifying results"?
I think the way credit ratings work is pretty horrifying.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I travelled last week by plane, train and bus. I saw the sign repeatedly saying things like "see it, report it!". Which is largely stupid, except when it comes to math equations: Flight delayed after passenger becomes suspicious of equation (I thought it was a joke, but it isn't)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
There is presumably a point at which massive surveillance becomes self-defeating, in that the watchers are flooded with so much irrelevant information that it's impossible for them to pick out 'Ricardus called Mr Cameron a bad egg' from all the boring stuff they have recorded him doing.
(There are stories of former East German dissidents getting access to their Stasi files and finding they consist almost entirely of 'Comrade Rikardus put the bins out' and 'Comrade Rikardus bought a new ironing board'.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The amount of effort going into that level of surveillance must have been a significant extra drag on a national economy which already didn't have much going for it.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
LeRoc I think the way credit ratings work is pretty horrifying.
I think that reply is a bit flippant
quote:
Ricardus There is presumably a point at which massive surveillance becomes self-defeating, in that the watchers are flooded with so much irrelevant information that it's impossible for them to pick out 'Ricardus called Mr Cameron a bad egg' from all the boring stuff they have recorded him doing
quote:
Enoch The amount of effort going into that level of surveillance must have been a significant extra drag on a national economy
Both these replies ignore the fact that surveillance will be done mostly by large computers. I believe that even at the present time street cams can select irregular movements and flag it up. Not to mention your words being already flagged on Mr Cameron's protection file.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
It must have represented a very high overhead cost historically. Though of course we now have data-mining and keyword recognition techniques, and the like, so high volumes of data can be pre-sorted. Also they can be held and reviewed historically.
(ETA - crosspost with shadeson who makes much the same point)
[ 11. May 2016, 08:47: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
As a slight aside, I think it was mooted some time ago that everyone’s DNA should be recorded at birth thus making detection of the involvement of someone in an event easier to detect. The reaction was one of horror and instant protest. I am not sure I remember what reasons were put forward apart from the obvious use for decoys at crime scenes.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The DNA issue only becomes evil if you do not have universal health care. In the current wacky US system you can immediately see how it could be abused. They analyze your DNA and see that you have a tendency, inherited from your grandfather, for colon cancer. (This is quite common and doesn't mean that you will get it.) Nevertheless the insurer seizes this as an opportunity to toss you out. After all, sometime in the next 50 years you may well get colon cancer, and it will be expensive to treat you. Suddenly you have no health insurance at all.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
quote:
LeRoc I think the way credit ratings work is pretty horrifying.
I think that reply is a bit flippant
I'm very serious.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
DNA issues include more than that. Suppose you turn up with a predisposition to psychosis or dementia. Wouldn't you just love to have every potential employer googling THAT and declining to put you in a position of responsibility, based on something that might well never come to pass? Or potential romantic partners, or landlords...
There's also the fact that what the scientists so delicately call "non-paternity events" would become public knowledge. And people being what they are, everyone would assume adultery rather than (say) sperm donation, or even rape.
I just don't wanna go there. (because people are assholes...)
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The assholery of the human race is, by and large, the reason why we cannot have nice things.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
.......surveillance will be done mostly by large computers. I believe that even at the present time street cams can select irregular movements and flag it up. Not to mention your words being already flagged on Mr Cameron's protection file.
AIUI, the listening technology America used on Bin Laden's compound is also becoming available for civil use. So somebody sat in a pub, or standing on a street corner, discussing the quality of mr C's egginess could also become a prime suspect were some dastardly deed to befall the poor fellow.
But as has been said the sheer bulk of data will itself become an incumberance in situations where it isn't possible to find them that dunnit using, for the main, more traditional methods.
As for constant surveillance, many of us seem to feel reassured by the ever present watching eye. In fact since the age of computer photography many seem all the more ready to make an exhibition of themselves.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
As for constant surveillance, many of us seem to feel reassured by the ever present watching eye.
It was when I saw this poster - from 2002 - and realised it was serious that I decided 1984 had truly arrived in the UK.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
(There are stories of former East German dissidents getting access to their Stasi files and finding they consist almost entirely of 'Comrade Rikardus put the bins out' and 'Comrade Rikardus bought a new ironing board'.)
I am reminded of William Shirer's account of being visited by the FBI in the late 1950s after he had lunch with the daughter of the pre-WW2 American ambassador to Germany. He was asked what they did, and he told them they talked and drank wine, and how carefully they noted it was a French wine.
Shirer was the Berlin CBS correspondent until the fall of France, and the author of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. He was scathing in his autobiography (vol.3, A Native's Return - I recommend all 3 volumes) of Ed Murrow who went along with his McCarthy blacklisting. The redemption and sainthood for Murrow (cf. the 2005 movie Good Night and Good Luck) later shows that people are intimidated and restrained in their conduct by surveillance and spying motivated by not wanting to be targeted themselves. -- I raise this in part to make the point that what we are dealing with now is not brandnew, just updated with technology.
This article seems useful: "the mere existence of a surveillance state breeds fear and conformity and stifles free expression". And goes on to report a "a 20 percent decline in page views on Wikipedia articles related to terrorism, including those that mentioned ‘al Qaeda,’ ‘car bomb’ or ‘Taliban.'" after Snowden told us what the spies were collecting about all us. --But of course only the guilty really have something to hide, right?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Right. Provided we are still living in a society whereby we are innocent until proven guilty.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
no prophet:- people are intimidated and restrained in their conduct by surveillance and spying motivated by not wanting to be targeted themselves.
"There are also numerous psychological studies demonstrating that people who believe they are being watched engage in behavior far more compliant, conformist and submissive than those who believe they are acting without monitoring."
Strange - I thought this was what it was all about when people thought twice about driving dangerously?
Are you saying that the fear of being associated with 'the wrong side' will stifle initiative? If so its a pretty vague assertion.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
But as has been said the sheer bulk of data will itself become an incumberance in situations where it isn't possible to find them that dunnit using, for the main, more traditional methods.
But it still can be used for post-facto digging and justification of actions against a particular individual, which in fact is what is done at the moment. The last few shootings by the Met have seen the Met's media team (around 70 strong) leak a mix of truths, half-truths and conjecture about the victim to the press prior to any kind of investigation. I expect it is the same elsewhere.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
As for constant surveillance, many of us seem to feel reassured by the ever present watching eye.
It was when I saw this poster - from 2002 - and realised it was serious that I decided 1984 had truly arrived in the UK.
Ha ha! Very good. But it looks more like something out of time, from Scarfolk, maybe.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The assholery of the human race is, by and large, the reason why we cannot have nice things.
Quotesfile!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Ha ha! Very good. But it looks more like something out of time, from Scarfolk, maybe.
No, it was a real thing sadly (and I remember seeing them in Tube Stations at the time):
http://www.wired.com/2007/01/secure_beneath_/
http://www.wired.com/2002/11/londons-privacy-falling-down/
You can still get copies of the post from the London Transport Museum shop.
[ 13. May 2016, 12:42: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Right. Provided we are still living in a society whereby we are innocent until proven guilty.
And you think we are???
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The last few shootings by the Met have seen the Met's media team (around 70 strong) leak a mix of truths, half-truths and conjecture about the victim to the press prior to any kind of investigation. I expect it is the same elsewhere.
The New York Metropolitan Opera shoots people?
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
I anticipated Brenda Clough's succinct description (post of 11th May) of humanity's anal problems when I said benign surveillance.
There were two underlying reasons for my OP (which produced interesting replies in its own right).
One was related to CS Lewis's ideas quote:
Such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void
The other related to Christian theology about the 'life to come'.
I presume most agree with St Paul that "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." However, 'the life to come' is in 'The Kingdom of God' where by its nature (i.e. as opposed to the kingdom of humanity) there can be no evil.
Assuming that the freedom to risk pain and be creative was still possible in the "new creation" would we be losing an essential part of our human nature? And is that the underliying reason for our suspicion of any suveillance?
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The theme has been handled in science fiction. One of Robert Heinlein's first short stories was about it. (And in a couple hours my slow brain will oblige with the title...)
You must be thinking of The Murderer . Though I saw that not as a scrutiny by a Big Brother, but as a constant interaction with other people – The psychiatrist's wrist radio buzzes 'This is Lee, Dad. Don't forget about my allowance,' the subject's wife calls 'Where are you now dear?' And music pours from every quarter. So he murders all the machines –telephone, television, stoves that say 'I'm prime roast beef, so baste me'. Beds that rock you to sleep and shake you awake...
Whenever I see people focussed on their smart-phone, I think 'Ray Bradbury saw it all in 1953'.
Yes, I have the book at hand. Time I re-read it.
GG
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
No, it was another one. Heinlein was writing during the period of the Cold War, so it was much on his mind. The story I'm thinking of involved a viewer, that would let you see anything, past or present. Naturally everyone pops over to see the Crucifixtion or the Resurrection, but the main traffic rapidly grew to take in sex -- everybody who ever rogered anybody. Either the inventor or somebody else destroys the machine at the end, lest Society Be Destroyed.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Although I have not read it myself, John Brunner's Times Without End (1969) also involves time-travel controlled by the Jesuits (the horror...). Each new pope on his election is allowed one visit to the Crucifixion. It is set in 1988 - but a 1988 which follows a 1588 in which the Spanish Armada won.
I've rather talked myself into getting a copy now...
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, it was another one. Heinlein was writing during the period of the Cold War, so it was much on his mind. The story I'm thinking of involved a viewer, that would let you see anything, past or present. Naturally everyone pops over to see the Crucifixtion or the Resurrection, but the main traffic rapidly grew to take in sex -- everybody who ever rogered anybody. Either the inventor or somebody else destroys the machine at the end, lest Society Be Destroyed.
Perhaps you're thinking of Asimov's The Dead Past. A historian is frustrated by the government in his attempt to gain access to tightly-controlled chronoscope technology in order to vindicate ancient Carthage against charges of child sacrifice. When he defiantly publicizes his discovery that the government has suppressed the fact that it can look back no farther than 120 years along with simple plans enabling anyone to make their own chronoscope, it is revealed that purpose for suppressing the technology had actually been to avert the nightmare scenario of universal surveillance of all by all (since, after all, the past begins just an instant ago.)
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:- It was when I saw this poster - from 2002 - and realised it was serious that I decided 1984 had truly arrived in the UK.
To labour the point. I can see that at the time the poster must have caused visions of 1984, but probably now all buses are fitted with CCTV to check on the passengers and no one cries foul.
So what is the thing that is worrying about a growth in benign surveillance? I am interested to see if anyone can spell it out.
Suppose, for instance, that the government decided that the whereabouts of everyone should be known at all times and insisted on transponders being worn - would that cause a riot?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The New York Metropolitan Opera shoots people?
Yes, but they don't die until they've sung a solo.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
The problem with benign surveillance is that there is no guarantee it continues to be so.
Most obvious example of mission creep would be a government using information gained from transport cctv to shut down civil protest.
Secondly, as any sociologist will tell you, everybody in the course of their life engages in actions that can be interpreted as a breacj of civil or criminal law. Mostly, this does not come to the attention of the state. Total surveillance would allow the state to differentially sanction inconvenient people virtually at will.
[ 14. May 2016, 19:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:- It was when I saw this poster - from 2002 - and realised it was serious that I decided 1984 had truly arrived in the UK.
...
So what is the thing that is worrying about a growth in benign surveillance? I am interested to see if anyone can spell it out.
I already have. There is no such thing. quote:
Suppose, for instance, that the government decided that the whereabouts of everyone should be known at all times and insisted on transponders being worn - would that cause a riot?
Can't comment on the riot part of the question. Perhaps we'd all be too polite. But, sorry to be blunt about this (and I'm not really sorry). If a person were to tell me they can't see anything wrong with this, I'd regard that as unequivocal evidence that they were a moral defective.
I don't see any ethical wriggle room on this, or anything to discuss.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
By Enoch
I don't see any ethical wriggle room on this, or anything to discuss
The wriggle room is that many reasonably moral people would object to the removal of CCTV in a lot of situations.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
quote:
By Enoch
I don't see any ethical wriggle room on this, or anything to discuss
The wriggle room is that many reasonably moral people would object to the removal of CCTV in a lot of situations.
But that wasn't the point in question; rather, transponders that let the authorities know everybody's location at all times.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
Enoch, there being zero expectation of privacy in public, on what grounds are surveillance cameras immoral?
The horror of the telescreen lies not in state surveillance, but in the routine intrusion of the state into the home.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
They used to have surveillance vans to check if you were watching TV without a licence...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
They used to have surveillance vans to check if you were watching TV without a licence...
They really didn't - or at least, they didn't operate in the way people expected.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Enoch, there being zero expectation of privacy in public, on what grounds are surveillance cameras immoral?
I think the initial principle you mention is largely orthogonal to the issue being discussed, which is the hoovering up and cross referencing of everything you do in public (which often undermines the principle of expectation of privacy in private anyway).
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0