Ethics of The Surveillance Society

[Darth Wong]

I will also note that no such system will prevent crime. It can only more easily punish it. And frankly people with enough hate in their hearts to do us harm are not so much concerned with being arrested. Often times in some area they can get police/refusal to prosecute or jury nullification.

You are assuming that a vastly increased likelihood of being caught would have zero effect whatsoever on crime rates, which seems completely absurd.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I will also note that no such system will prevent crime. It can only more easily punish it. And frankly people with enough hate in their hearts to do us harm are not so much concerned with being arrested. Often times in some area they can get police/refusal to prosecute or jury nullification.

You are assuming that a vastly increased likelihood of being caught would have zero effect whatsoever on crime rates, which seems completely absurd.

People are fairly good at deluding themselves and finding workarounds for problems. Or they just dont care. I have been assaulted in broad daylight, in public didnt stop the guy from attempting (unsuccessfully) to forcibly insert a soda bottle into my nether regions. Nor has DNA testing really reduced the incidence of rape for example...

[Singular Intellect]

People are fairly good at deluding themselves and finding workarounds for problems. Or they just dont care.

There will always be brainless or manipulative people trying to abuse systems or not caring about consequences for their actions. This in itself is not an arguement against the systems anymore than thugs who don't give a shit about prison time is a arguement about the uselessness of prisons.

The goal is to combat these people as much as possible...a high surveillance system would increase those efforts significantly.

I have been assaulted in broad daylight, in public didnt stop the guy from attempting (unsuccessfully) to forcibly insert a soda bottle into my nether regions.

Perhaps had this been observed by authorities via public surveillance systems, law enforcement could've arrived in time to intervene.

Nor has DNA testing really reduced the incidence of rape for example...

DNA evidence testing in itself doesn't prevent crimes, it increases the chances of determining the guilty party and dealing with them.

A more closely monitored society on the other hand could easily reduce rape incidents for obvious reasons.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Perhaps had this been observed by authorities via public surveillance systems, law enforcement could've arrived in time to intervene.

On site security did not intervene, this took place in a public school.

A more closely monitored society on the other hand could easily reduce rape incidents for obvious reasons.

Most rapes take place in areas that could not reasonably be monitored. Like inside people's homes, or other private, not public places.

DNA evidence testing in itself doesn't prevent crimes, it increases the chances of determining the guilty party and dealing with them.

How about you stop making strawman attacks and shifting Mike's goalposts for him. I was making an argument about crime prevention, so was Mike. It follows that an argument dealing with a question of crime prevention would not address one of punishment you fucking retard. Did your mom drop you? Did she drink or smoke crack when you were in the womb?

This in itself is not an arguement against the systems anymore than thugs who don't give a shit about prison time is a arguement about the uselessness of prisons.

If you are making an argument about crime prevention, predicated on the idea that surveillance will reduce crime, an argument attempting to refute it is indeed an argument against the system in question.

Now how about you go back to the Symposium, let Alcibiades bugger you for a while, and come back later when you are capable of conversing with adults.

[Shroom Man 777]

Would this Surveillance Society's methods also extend to auditory means, like listening in on phone calls? How about reading people's emails?

[[R_H]]

Would this Surveillance Society's methods also extend to auditory means, like listening in on phone calls? How about reading people's emails?

Doesn't the NSA already do this with the ECHELON program?

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind that universal surveillance generates an immense amount of data. Something like ECHELON looks for key words, and there is some current work on computer analysis of video to identify individuals or certain situations as important and worthy of further scrutiny. The effectiveness of data processing will have a considerably impact on the form of a surveillance society and on whether or not it prevents or solves crime.

For example - even stupid criminals know that if they rob a bank they'll be on camera. They still rob banks, attempting to disguise their faces. Rapists have been known to use condoms so they don't leave DNA evidence. A certain element will always attempt to circumvent the system. Surveillance will not stop crime, at best it will reduce it and make catching the crooks a little easier.

[Darth Wong]

Keep in mind that universal surveillance generates an immense amount of data. Something like ECHELON looks for key words, and there is some current work on computer analysis of video to identify individuals or certain situations as important and worthy of further scrutiny. The effectiveness of data processing will have a considerably impact on the form of a surveillance society and on whether or not it prevents or solves crime.

It also means that most of the nightmare scenarios about how every insignificant misdeed will be harshly punished are absurd, because it will be so impractical to do so. They will have far too much data on serious offenses to run around grabbing everyone who commits any kind of minor infraction.

Take your stop-sign example: since computers would obviously have to do most of the work in this hypothetical high-surveillance society (let's say everyone has an implanted tracking device, for example), if it turns out that most people do occasionally slip up and miss a stop sign, then it would be child's play to have the system check stop-sign infractions and see if the driver in question has a history of doing it on a regular basis and not getting fined for it until now: something that a roadside stop by a police officer could not verify.

For example - even stupid criminals know that if they rob a bank they'll be on camera. They still rob banks, attempting to disguise their faces. Rapists have been known to use condoms so they don't leave DNA evidence. A certain element will always attempt to circumvent the system. Surveillance will not stop crime, at best it will reduce it and make catching the crooks a little easier.

That depends on how effective it is. I would agree that an ineffective high-surveillance regime wouldn't accomplish much, but that doesn't really speak to the thesis.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That depends on how effective it is. I would agree that an ineffective high-surveillance regime wouldn't accomplish much, but that doesn't really speak to the thesis.

How effective it is would be dependent on the specific mechanism, and any possible misuses of it would depend on that as well.

Now that I think of it, just talking about a high surveillance regime is pretty useless until we define what exactly such a system would entail. Otherwise we cant know what the positive and potential negative effects are.

[Darth Wong]

That depends on how effective it is. I would agree that an ineffective high-surveillance regime wouldn't accomplish much, but that doesn't really speak to the thesis.

How effective it is would be dependent on the specific mechanism, and any possible misuses of it would depend on that as well.

Now that I think of it, just talking about a high surveillance regime is pretty useless until we define what exactly such a system would entail. Otherwise we cant know what the positive and potential negative effects are.

I'm thinking of something like Demolition Man, albeit without the incredibly strict new behavioural laws.

[Broomstick]

Take your stop-sign example: since computers would obviously have to do most of the work in this hypothetical high-surveillance society (let's say everyone has an implanted tracking device, for example), if it turns out that most people do occasionally slip up and miss a stop sign, then it would be child's play to have the system check stop-sign infractions and see if the driver in question has a history of doing it on a regular basis and not getting fined for it until now: something that a roadside stop by a police officer could not verify.

Chicago has implemented "red light cameras" and system that (supposedly) automatically snap the license plate of a violator of red traffic lights, cross-reference to the license database, and automatically mail out notifications of fines. Automated law enforcement, what's not to like?

Well.... it's important to have the system properly adjusted - there have been instances of the cameras being mistimed and frequently getting the wrong car at an intersection. City Hall initially resisted the suggestion that the system needed adjustment, stating the cameras don't lie, but in fact they can be mistaken in the sense of getting a perfectly clear picture of the wrong car. Well, that's been fixed. Then there have been a couple instances of car thieves blasting through multiple red lights and the rightful owner of the car being billed for violations committed by criminals. Not to mention incidents where, say, a relative of the car owner (spouse, child, whatever) commits the violation but the owner gets the penalty - something unlikely to happen if a live cop pulls you over. Although the owner shouldn't loan his/her car to irresponsible people, we have already stated that even responsible people make occasional mistakes and it should be the person who does the wrong thing who suffers the consequences, not a third party.

Part of the problems with the above situation is resistance by the bureaucracy that anything could possibly be in error - clearly, if you want an accurate and effective surveillance system it will require maintenance and some means of double-checking the facts.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, when it comes to traffic infractions, I think this society could use a lot less "err on the side of innocence" thinking. More than forty thousand Americans are killed every year on the road; is it really such a stretch to think that maybe we should be a lot stricter?

If the system is incorrectly timed, that's obviously a problem (although it wouldn't be an issue with a GPS-based Demolition Man-style system). But if it's a car thief, that could be corrected on appeal. If it's lending your car to an idiot, then well, frankly, you have to pay so that you'll learn your lesson and not give away a deadly weapon to an idiot again.

[Solauren]

Demolition man style survillance eh?

Okay, so, everyone has a tracking chip, that also doubles as their bank card, possibly keys, and more then likely a Universal ID.

Combine that with a nice street light system, and all those lights being video cameras.

That would actually cut down violent and physical crime considerably.

Go ahead, rob a bank. We'll just check to see who was in the bank at the time it was robbed. We know the names of the witnesses and everyone else, so we remove them from the list. Hello bank robbers.

Who raped this dead girl? Well, according to our records, we lose contact with her at 10:30 last night. That's probably when her chip was deactivated / removed. The person closest to her was a Mr. X. Mr. X is also showing around that time, heightened physical responses comparable to those of a fight, or rough sex.

Missing Child? Chip says she's 200 meters from her house. Found her, she's hiding in a tree.

Kidnapped child? Okay, her chip says she's on Interstate 12, heading south, and the nearest person is Ms. Z. Well, let's get the police tracking her. Okay, she's pulled over. The kid will be back home in a few hours, and Ms. Z will be in booking by that point.


Depending on how the system was set up, you could also do the morally questionable / wrong things that some fear.

i.e Who was in this shop today? Who is cheating on who, etc.

It would depend on
#1 - How the data is recorded. if it's into a properly set up database, it's possible. However, that database is going to be massive.

#2 - How much processing power you have. Do you really want to waste processing power on stuff like 'How many people are going to the sex shop' when there's stuff like 'missing children' to find?

#3 - If it's even worth the bother?

[Anguirus]

I've been popping in on this thread for the past couple of days, trying to come up with a good response to DW's original question.

To qualify, I don't have much of a problem with CCTV cameras in public spaces (because they're, you know, public) nor with universal fingerprinting/DNA...in principle. In practice...maybe it's because I'm American but I am going through some serious mistrust of our entire government these days. And I'm a straight white dude...I can't even imagine how people like Duchess and Alyrium would feel about the potential for abuse and/or harassment.

I am also totally against reading of e-mails or instant messages, or warrantless wiretapping, but DW didn't bring those up in the OP.

In short, I'm quite torn.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok. Provided we can physically do a Demolition Man style system, I will say flat out, that system would be disgustingly effective, but it would also be very easy to abuse. All you would need is a sanctimonious twat in charge before you start seeing behavior enforcement. Hell, the current US government would abuse this system more than Lewis Carol wanted to abuse his neighbor's daughter. All I need to do is look at that sort of abuses my government has committed with its current spying power, and what political games they have played with people's lives and livelyhoods to think that maybe the benefit here would not outweigh the cost.

Hell, even the idea that someone is watching your every move could radically alter behavior in a way we do not necessarily want.

Maybe if the sensitive information was not real-time and was under lock and key. For example, your life signs are fed through a network constantly, and if you go into distress authorities are automatically notified and the computer accesses your currently location before the data is put in storage (see below)

(say for example the computer that collects the data is shut down at the end of the day, and the information dumped into an un-networked computer kept by local law enforcement under lock and key, only accessible by the local DA after showing his warrant to the cop at the door, and to the guy that does the data transfer(and that only goes one way) )

That might work. CCTV cameras working the same way. Local precincts responsible for data-handling.

[Death from the Sea]

and what would stop the criminals from removing their chips before setting out on a crime spree?

[Jaevric]

and what would stop the criminals from removing their chips before setting out on a crime spree?

Depends on where the chip is and how much it's going to hurt to take it out, I suppose. I guess some people would be willing and able to carve open their own arm or leg to remove a chip, but if the thing's stuck somewhere less convenient then it's a different issue.

Besides, if you tie the chips into things like operating a motor vehicle or using a credit card, then it's going to be really awkward to go on any crime spree that isn't conveniently located to wherever you decide to take the chip out.

"Well, all the crimes occurred within 5 miles of this location, and this person's chip suddenly stopped moving or reporting vital signs about half an hour before the first incident. I think we have a suspect."

[Darmalus]

I'm imagining something where you could have a list of preferences or conditions tied to tracking chips. So if you tell Skynet that you and only you should ever use the keys to you car, and suddenly Skynet notices that your brainchip is still in your bedroom, while your car key chip has decided to take a joyride all on its own, you could get an automated phone call letting you know and asking if it has been stolen.

But that requires a level of competence I fear I will never see from any organization, ever.

[Singular Intellect]

I'm imagining something where you could have a list of preferences or conditions tied to tracking chips. So if you tell Skynet that you and only you should ever use the keys to you car, and suddenly Skynet notices that your brainchip is still in your bedroom, while your car key chip has decided to take a joyride all on its own, you could get an automated phone call letting you know and asking if it has been stolen.

But that requires a level of competence I fear I will never see from any organization, ever.

Perhaps we can dream of one day having vastly super intelligent AI that follows the three laws concept running all of it for us instead.

[Metatwaddle]

Frankly, when it comes to traffic infractions, I think this society could use a lot less "err on the side of innocence" thinking. More than forty thousand Americans are killed every year on the road; is it really such a stretch to think that maybe we should be a lot stricter?

If the system is incorrectly timed, that's obviously a problem (although it wouldn't be an issue with a GPS-based Demolition Man-style system). But if it's a car thief, that could be corrected on appeal. If it's lending your car to an idiot, then well, frankly, you have to pay so that you'll learn your lesson and not give away a deadly weapon to an idiot again.

I'm in favor of red light cameras if they actually reduce accident rates and serve as effective deterrents, but a number of studies have found that they actually increase rear-end collisions and total injuries at intersections. Sometimes angle collisions decrease at those intersections, and sometimes they don't.

[Darth Wong]

and what would stop the criminals from removing their chips before setting out on a crime spree?

In the case of the actual Demolition Man system, the authorities would literally know the second you removed the chip.

[Singular Intellect]

and what would stop the criminals from removing their chips before setting out on a crime spree?

In the case of the actual Demolition Man system, the authorities would literally know the second you removed the chip.

And that in itself could be labelled a crime, since said chip is in place to protect everyone including the person trying to remove it.

I know people who bitch and whine about seat belts in cars because they are 'uncomfortable' or just don't like wearing them. I think they're fucking idiots and the laws regarding selt beats are extremely good ones.

[Broomstick]

Frankly, when it comes to traffic infractions, I think this society could use a lot less "err on the side of innocence" thinking. More than forty thousand Americans are killed every year on the road; is it really such a stretch to think that maybe we should be a lot stricter?

If the system is incorrectly timed, that's obviously a problem (although it wouldn't be an issue with a GPS-based Demolition Man-style system). But if it's a car thief, that could be corrected on appeal. If it's lending your car to an idiot, then well, frankly, you have to pay so that you'll learn your lesson and not give away a deadly weapon to an idiot again.

I'm in favor of red light cameras if they actually reduce accident rates and serve as effective deterrents, but a number of studies have found that they actually increase rear-end collisions and total injuries at intersections. Sometimes angle collisions decrease at those intersections, and sometimes they don't.

Well, yes - if you slam on the brakes to avoid the ticket for running a red light someone could easily crash into you from behind. Or, if the intersection is slick (and it can be difficult to judge slickness at times) it might be physically safer to keep going than to slam on the brakes and spin out. I mentioned some posts back that there are times when doing the technically incorrect thing is actually the best course, and accident prevention can be one of those situations.

In aviation this is actually encoded into the regulations - in order to prevent an accident you are allowed to break the rules. Of course, there is also the fact that you can be called to account for your actions after the fact (indeed, I faced exactly that situation after an emergency landing in a field in Illinois). Likewise, if a driver can make a case that by breaking a traffic law (sudden acceleration to speeding velocity, blowing a stoplight/sign, whatever) an accident was prevented such a driver should not be penalized. In such a case an intersection camera may work in the driver's favor. And no, this should not be an easy-out for, say, a speeding violation that put the driver into the precarious position in the first place, this would apply only to unexpected hazards. In aviation, radar records and eye witnesses such as air traffic controllers have made this sort of exception to the rules practical to enforce but without something like intersection cameras I don't see how it could be done for cars.

One of the problems with the Chicago system as originally envisioned was that there wasn't a solid right to appeal or to explain. This has since been modified, as one would expect in a society with any sort of claim to sanity but the transition period was rocky.

Another situation is on the freeway where a 911 call on a cellphone can bring help to accident victims and people in distress much faster than officers patrolling the pavement or waiting for other drivers to find a fixed phone to call it in. While I would not normally condone making a call while driving a brief, to the point 911 call with no extraneous chatting may be reasonable.

[Broomstick]

I know people who bitch and whine about seat belts in cars because they are 'uncomfortable' or just don't like wearing them. I think they're fucking idiots and the laws regarding selt beats are extremely good ones.

I have a friend who actually was in one of the few freak accidents where not wearing a seat belt probably saved his life (although that month or so in the hospital really sucked). Since then he will not wear a seat belt as his personal experience "proves" they don't really improve safety. Drives me nuts. Just glad he hasn't had any more accidents.

[aerius]

If it actually works and puts a nice big dent in crime rates I'm all for it, however the jury is still out on this one. There was a thread way back in time where I pulled up crime stats for London (UK) from before & after their mass CCTV installation, blanketing the city with cameras didn't do anything to reduce crime rates. Some cities have had minor successes, while in others there's been no effect at all, or crime actually goes up.

Current surveillance systems are still rather questionable, it's hard to say if they have any real effect on crime rates. I can't bring myself to support them since the cost of installing & running the systems could pay for quite a few extra cops on the beat, and that is proven to drop crime rates.