Ethics of The Surveillance Society

[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.

[Singular Intellect]

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.

I'd love him to try not wearing one in my car: "Put it on or get the fuck out."

[Broomstick]

He'd get out. And give you an earful.

[Singular Intellect]

He'd get out. And give you an earful.

Interestingly I'd be inclined to do the same..."Look moron, I don't give a shit what your personal experience is; just because you amazingly luck out and survive a free fall without a parachute does not mean parachutes are a bad idea!".

[Dahak]

The cars I've been driving tend to make very annoying noices if someone in the car is not wearing a seat belt. This goes so far that I cannot put something on the passenger seat that is a bit heavier than a book or something because the sensor will register it as a "passenger" and then start whailing...
It might be really annoying, but at least it tends to get the point across.

[Knife]

My argument is not predicated on the politicians necessarily.

Yes it is, it is predicated on the politics of anti-gay. You have failed to realize that in the the system proposed, the anti-gay extreme would be fairly documented for the pro-gay or the pro-justice or the center, for lack of a better word.

While they are a component (and it is not like they could not pull strings to keep the info a secret) they are not the main issue.

Err, not. That's the OP. Equal access to the data of misconduct. Those beating up on Gays would be recorded as well.

What I am primarily concerned with is that security measures cannot even keep our vital documents like credit card numbers secret,

I'd say the opposite is true, if everyone knew them it would make it harder to screw you over since trends would predict and falsify purchases that thieves would make.

and I am pretty sure they will be inadequate to conceal say... the license plate numbers at a local gay bar.

Here is your bias again. It would show the 'gay' folk at a gay bar. It would also show the Conservative Christian folk at the gay bar, or the strip bar. It would show the people at what they do, showing the people what they do. That would be an improvement over what the demi-gods say we do.

If someone were to get that information (and all the info they can get from the plate number, which is considerable) the people that normally attack us outside the bar will know where we live (if the info is published to a website or newspaper, disseminated in a church newsletter, all protected by the first amendment) they might even know where we work.

And you will know all that about them.

People will be harassed, attacked, lose their jobs.... And it is not like the instigating incident is not without precedent. People collect license plate number from porn shops and abortion clinics. This would allow similar things to be done on a much larger scale, and not just to gay people.

Your arguments are those of a one sided system not a full system. Your bias is showing.

[Darth Wong]

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.

How does he know that he would have been worse off if he was wearing a seatbelt? The car was crushed flat by something and he got ejected in the nick of time? Does he also think that if a cigarette lighter in a chest pocket deflects a bullet and saves his life in a freak occurrence, then he must chain-smoke for the rest of his life, for safety?

[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.

How does he know that he would have been worse off if he was wearing a seatbelt? The car was crushed flat by something and he got ejected in the nick of time?

Exactly.

His pickup was crushed flat and shredded by a train. If he had not been ejected he would have been killed. As it was, he spent some time in a coma and took months to recover from his injuries. He was very lucky in that he wasn't left disabled by the accident.

(Before accusations of stupidity on his part arise - other than the seat belt issue - he won a hefty court settlement when it was proved the warning devices at the crossing malfunctioned. With five tracks to cross and a parked frieght obscuring the line of sight he had no way to know another train was bout to run him down other than the warning devices, which in this case were not working).

Normally the guy is pretty logical about risks, that's what makes this issue so frustrating. He's got a massive blind spot on the issue based on a (we hope) one-time occurence in his life.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The cars I've been driving tend to make very annoying noices if someone in the car is not wearing a seat belt. This goes so far that I cannot put something on the passenger seat that is a bit heavier than a book or something because the sensor will register it as a "passenger" and then start whailing...
It might be really annoying, but at least it tends to get the point across.

There's a light that flashes in our car if the passengers aren't buckled in, so I just pull the seatbelt across and buckle it when there's something heavy in the passenger's seat.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes it is, it is predicated on the politics of anti-gay.

WHat gets documented and what gets used are two different things for starters. We have plenty of evidence that several members of our government are guilty of war crimes, and felonies under domestic law, but the DOJ refuses to prosecute.

So that is a fair thing to say. If the climate is sufficiently anti-gay, even the crimes that are caught on tape might not get prosecuted or the perps will get reduced sentences.

Also. Dont cherry pick apart another person's sentences so it means what you want it to mean. (see below)

You have failed to realize that in the the system proposed, the anti-gay extreme would be fairly documented for the pro-gay or the pro-justice or the center, for lack of a better word.

Did you rather conveniently miss where right after this sentence I was referring to some non-governmental individual or group gaining access to the surveillance system and using that information against me? We can quibble over the exact nature of such a system and how it could be used one way or the other, but considering current technology it would be rather easy for that very circumstance to occur.

Err, not. That's the OP. Equal access to the data of misconduct. Those beating up on Gays would be recorded as well.

And what of someone hacking into a database, gaining a list of gay bar patrons, and then doing things like putting their names and addresses in the newspaper? That is not actually illegal, but it can ruin people's lives.

I'd say the opposite is true, if everyone knew them it would make it harder to screw you over since trends would predict and falsify purchases that thieves would make.

Red herring. I was making a point regarding data security.

Your arguments are those of a one sided system not a full system. Your bias is showing.

You have twisted the initial premise beyond recognition. Where the fuck anywhere in this thread is anyone other than you suggesting that every person have legal access to all information gathered by such a system? I am discussing the system proposed asshat, not the one in your rather creative imagination.

[Darth Wong]

You have twisted the initial premise beyond recognition. Where the fuck anywhere in this thread is anyone other than you suggesting that every person have legal access to all information gathered by such a system? I am discussing the system proposed asshat, not the one in your rather creative imagination.

Don't be a goddamned retard. YOU are twisting the scenario, by claiming that only anti-gay forces would have access to this information. In reality, even if only 5% of the government was sympathetic to gays, they would easily be able to collect incriminating information on the other 95%. The hypocrites would be easily exposed for what they are, and they would know it.

[Knife]

WHat gets documented and what gets used are two different things for starters. We have plenty of evidence that several members of our government are guilty of war crimes, and felonies under domestic law, but the DOJ refuses to prosecute.

Oh gag. The government isn't a monolithic block. The information is out there and recorded for any party to use (or authorized to use). If some jack ass uses the info to find gays to beat up, they are on tape both beating up gays and also presumably looking up the information.

So that is a fair thing to say. If the climate is sufficiently anti-gay, even the crimes that are caught on tape might not get prosecuted or the perps will get reduced sentences.

Your bitch is with the justice system then, not the proposed surveillance system.

Also. Dont cherry pick apart another person's sentences so it means what you want it to mean. (see below)

I didn't, I broke it down into basic points to address. It is not my problem you are a verbose shithead.

Did you rather conveniently miss where right after this sentence I was referring to some non-governmental individual or group gaining access to the surveillance system and using that information against me?

Again your bitch is with the justice system in this point, not the surveillance.

We can quibble over the exact nature of such a system and how it could be used one way or the other, but considering current technology it would be rather easy for that very circumstance to occur.

I can see that abuses could happen. However like I said, the information works both ways. All the 'evidence' of the crimes committed on you AND honestly the evidence of the abuse to get that information are now in the system too. Whether or not a particular justice system will hear that evidence I guess is up to debate.

And what of someone hacking into a database, gaining a list of gay bar patrons, and then doing things like putting their names and addresses in the newspaper? That is not actually illegal, but it can ruin people's lives.

Actually, if everyone is outed, I don't think it would ruin lives. All the 'family values' hypocrites who hang out at gay bars or strip clubs will be just as outed as closeted gays.

Red herring. I was making a point regarding data security.

No it is not. I don't give a fuck what your point is, if everyone has the info, or access to it, you don't have to worry about someone wanting to hack it out.

You have twisted the initial premise beyond recognition. Where the fuck anywhere in this thread is anyone other than you suggesting that every person have legal access to all information gathered by such a system? I am discussing the system proposed asshat, not the one in your rather creative imagination.

Nope, asshat; your the one twisting it all up, like your panties, because you have some weird idea that a universal surveillance system will automatically be one sided against your particular sacred cow.

Such fearmongering could be said about just about every fucking thing. Them damn rednecks could use the system to look up all the black churches to burn down....damn we shouldn't use the system.

Oh shit, all those All Men's Club guys will look up all the up and coming female workers and make a list of people not to hire...Pandamonium, can't use the system.



If anything, your whole argument is a red herring since it has jack and shit to do with the OT and is more about the defunct justice system as you see it.

edit to fix tags

[Phantasee]

The issue with the Demolition Man style chips was that it was part of a behaviour modification program. Which is one of the things people are afraid of.

And another: Bubble Boy, you might think Canada is much better than the US in terms of acceptance of people, but I don't believe you've been to Interior BC, rural Alberta, or Saskatchewan? I've been to all three, plus small-town Ontario, and I will tell you that it's not much different from the US. People have stared at me the entire time I was in a road-side diner for breakfast, just because I'm different. That was in BC, arguably one of the most liberal provinces in Canada. It's easy to forget the large swathes of this country that are still relatively backwards.

[madd0ct0r]

The flaw with a surveyed society is that it is just that - only surveyed.

At a Demolition Man standard (without the behaivour mods - as specified), with sufficent resources also pumped into well trained rapid response units you may well be able to stop a crime part way through (a long rape or kidnapping for example).

You would certainly have fantastic evidence collection for later prosecution but I agree with many of the posters that I'd rather not have the crime happen at all.

I know some of you are going to jump at that - knowing you are likely (or even certain) to be caught and punished is a huge deterrent. But that assumes the human population is 100% logical.
The existence of this site as a haven of atheisim seems to contradict this.

Survelliance will not stop all crime, even the fairly high level survelliance we experience in Britian does very little. (as previously pointed out)
It will allow for much stronger prosecution but not eliminate irrational crimes - crimes of passion, sexually motivated or simply perpetrated by the very stupid



As such I move that

the benefits of evidance gathering and possible (probablilty * significance) intervention & reduction of rational crime

are not sufficent to outweigh

{the cost of implementing and maintaining the system & the possibility(probablilty * significance) of abuse by the authorities & the possibility(probablilty * significance) of abuse by individuals}



This is assuming that the data is not widely or publicly available. In those circumstances the weightings change but i think the argument will still stand.

[Timotheus]

Once you create the perfect surveillance system then the surveillance alone would be all the evidence needed or at least it would be all that is needed in the court of public opinion.

That would be dangerous in a society where the fabrication of fake video would become easier and easier.

Peeping and stalking would be much easier unless you somehow make this whole system unhackable. I dont know about you but I would rather not be wondering who has hacked into my bedroom security cam and started making personal porno videos of my wife and I.

Now if you want to limit the system to purely public places and have them autowrite over after a set period of time (say one year maybe two) then objections become smaller and smaller.

Now a system like this is possible in a place line London where you can almost put out enough cameras to see everywhere but the rest of the world is a much larger place. Conventional camera systems would not be plausable which means you are looking at a satellite system. A sat based system would have holes in it though due to weather or scale issues. To be useful the satellites would have to somehow record the entire planet at CCD scale.

Overal I think the tech limits of watching everything would be too hard to voercome and even if you did then the security issues would be even harder to beat.

[Darth Wong]

madd0ct0r: the idea that such incredibly pervasive surveillance would have zero effect on criminal behaviour is completely unsupportable. Even so-called "impulse crimes" are not completely unaffected by reason. To take an obvious example, very few of them happen in the presence of a police officer.

Timotheus: the idea was always video surveillance in public places, not private places. However, the "Demolition Man" style of system would know your location at all times, because you have a tracking device implanted in your body. So the authorities would know that you're in your bedroom, but they won't know what you're doing inside. They also know your vital signs, so they would know the second you die. That does make murder quite a bit more difficult to get away with. It also makes medical emergencies much more survivable. If you haven't watched "Demolition Man", I would recommend that you give it a try. It's a really fun movie.

[Aaron]

The issue with the Demolition Man style chips was that it was part of a behaviour modification program. Which is one of the things people are afraid of.

And another: Bubble Boy, you might think Canada is much better than the US in terms of acceptance of people, but I don't believe you've been to Interior BC, rural Alberta, or Saskatchewan? I've been to all three, plus small-town Ontario, and I will tell you that it's not much different from the US. People have stared at me the entire time I was in a road-side diner for breakfast, just because I'm different. That was in BC, arguably one of the most liberal provinces in Canada. It's easy to forget the large swathes of this country that are still relatively backwards.

You don't even have to be a minority in these areas (I used to live in BC, the Interior is just the US South with peaches), just not being born in the town is enough to get the cold shoulder or stares. I've lived in rural Ontario for ten years (4 years in this same town) and people still stare at us.

[Timotheus]

madd0ct0r: the idea that such incredibly pervasive surveillance would have zero effect on criminal behaviour is completely unsupportable. Even so-called "impulse crimes" are not completely unaffected by reason. To take an obvious example, very few of them happen in the presence of a police officer.

Timotheus: the idea was always video surveillance in public places, not private places. However, the "Demolition Man" style of system would know your location at all times, because you have a tracking device implanted in your body. So the authorities would know that you're in your bedroom, but they won't know what you're doing inside. They also know your vital signs, so they would know the second you die. That does make murder quite a bit more difficult to get away with. It also makes medical emergencies much more survivable. If you haven't watched "Demolition Man", I would recommend that you give it a try. It's a really fun movie.

I have seen the movie and it did have its moments. My biggest reservation falls back to the computers and more specifically hackers. Imagine you live in Demolition Man society and some hacker who doesnt like you for some reason gets into the system and turns off your chip. Basically tells the system you are dead. You cannot get into your house. Might not be able to get into your car (Simon drove car but he stole it from someone he killed right next to the parking space).

What if the hacker swaps you with someone else in the system including pictures? It is bad enough today to prove you are right and the computers are wrong (just try to correct mistakes on your credit report) in Demolition Man it may take a body cavity search before they decide you really are you.

The system is also very useful to stalkers. Your girlfriend runs away after the 50th time you slap her around so you pay $500 to a hacker nerd and he tells you exactly where she is.

Make the system unhackable and all this goes away. But then what are the odds anyone will ever create a system that cannot be hacked.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think you understand; part of the reason it's so easy to hack things is that electronic transactions are so anonymous, which is in part because the entire network has been designed to make such anonymity possible. In a high-surveillance society, it would be far easier for hackers to get caught. And once caught, it would be far easier to enforce "no computer" restrictions upon them.

[Timotheus]

I don't think you understand; part of the reason it's so easy to hack things is that electronic transactions are so anonymous, which is in part because the entire network has been designed to make such anonymity possible. In a high-surveillance society, it would be far easier for hackers to get caught. And once caught, it would be far easier to enforce "no computer" restrictions upon them.

The level of technology your talking about is pretty high. It might create a new black market. Go somewhere and have your chip altered to give you a new identity. I mean who bothers with DNA testing and fingerprints if everyones chip will tell you who they are.

Where does the watching stop though? In Demo Man you could buy anything or go in your house without waving your hand. What happens when the overzealous IRS agent seizes all your assets? Boom you are locked out of everything. Sure the agent will eventually get punished but we all know punishment is not a deterent. It rarely is. Punishment is either a long term or short term guaruntee that you will not repeat your crime because you are incarcerated. The deterent part really only applies to people who are not going to break the law without extreme circumstances anyway.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think you understand; part of the reason it's so easy to hack things is that electronic transactions are so anonymous, which is in part because the entire network has been designed to make such anonymity possible. In a high-surveillance society, it would be far easier for hackers to get caught. And once caught, it would be far easier to enforce "no computer" restrictions upon them.

The level of technology your talking about is pretty high. It might create a new black market. Go somewhere and have your chip altered to give you a new identity. I mean who bothers with DNA testing and fingerprints if everyones chip will tell you who they are.

And how easy would it be to catch this operation, when the system knows the instant your old identity ceases to exist?

Where does the watching stop though? In Demo Man you could buy anything or go in your house without waving your hand. What happens when the overzealous IRS agent seizes all your assets? Boom you are locked out of everything.

That can already happen today, and has nothing to do with surveillance levels.

Sure the agent will eventually get punished but we all know punishment is not a deterent. It rarely is.

BULLSHIT. If punishment is not a deterrent, then how do you explain the fact that the crime rate in anarchistic societies is so much higher than it is in law-and-order societies? The biggest problem with legal deterrent is that people don't think they'll be caught. If the law is so much more pervasive and the odds of getting away with things are so much lower, what makes you think there will be no effect, other than you saying so?

Punishment is either a long term or short term guaruntee that you will not repeat your crime because you are incarcerated. The deterent part really only applies to people who are not going to break the law without extreme circumstances anyway.

Ah, so people are somehow exempt from the behavioural conditioning laws which affect animals? Explain why you are so sure that this is the case.

[Darth Wong]

That's a good point. The ease with which people hack into personal websites or even corporate websites should not be used as proof that they could (for example) easily hack into NSA computers, never mind being able to do so virtually on demand, as Timotheus' scenario calls for.

[Timotheus]

I don't think you understand; part of the reason it's so easy to hack things is that electronic transactions are so anonymous, which is in part because the entire network has been designed to make such anonymity possible. In a high-surveillance society, it would be far easier for hackers to get caught. And once caught, it would be far easier to enforce "no computer" restrictions upon them.

The level of technology your talking about is pretty high. It might create a new black market. Go somewhere and have your chip altered to give you a new identity. I mean who bothers with DNA testing and fingerprints if everyones chip will tell you who they are.

And how easy would it be to catch this operation, when the system knows the instant your old identity ceases to exist?

Where does the watching stop though? In Demo Man you could buy anything or go in your house without waving your hand. What happens when the overzealous IRS agent seizes all your assets? Boom you are locked out of everything.

That can already happen today, and has nothing to do with surveillance levels.

Sure the agent will eventually get punished but we all know punishment is not a deterent. It rarely is.

BULLSHIT. If punishment is not a deterrent, then how do you explain the fact that the crime rate in anarchistic societies is so much higher than it is in law-and-order societies? The biggest problem with legal deterrent is that people don't think they'll be caught. If the law is so much more pervasive and the odds of getting away with things are so much lower, what makes you think there will be no effect, other than you saying so?

Punishment is either a long term or short term guaruntee that you will not repeat your crime because you are incarcerated. The deterent part really only applies to people who are not going to break the law without extreme circumstances anyway.

Ah, so people are somehow exempt from the behavioural conditioning laws which affect animals? Explain why you are so sure that this is the case.

Spend much time incarcerated or talking to people who have been? I am talking about career criminals. They are not deterred by law enforcement or punishment. Those who are truly deterred generally are the people who would not commit the crime in the first place. Sure there is a set number of people in jail/prison who did not think they would be caught but a vast majority of those are first time offenders, in Canada is about 60% of people in prison are repreat offenders, I do have not have numbers available but I would expect that the number would be higher in the United States.

So which do you think is more common? That most of the repeat offenders really thought they would get away with everything they were doing or that most figured at some point they might get nailed for something and a year or two is the price to pay for their lifestyle.

[Twoyboy]

Spend much time incarcerated or talking to people who have been? I am talking about career criminals. They are not deterred by law enforcement or punishment. Those who are truly deterred generally are the people who would not commit the crime in the first place.

If that were true there would be no evidence of the fear of incarceration reducing crime rates. Darth Wong has already pointed out that there is such evidence.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, first off, the fact that people are repeat offenders doesn't in some cases doesn't mean that punishment doesn't work. It means that what you're doing isn't, for them, an effective punishment. For something to be a punishment, it doesn't need to eliminate a particular behaviour either, just reduce it. Punishment's defined in behavioural psychology as a stimulus that decreases a particular behaviour.

If the criminal's are repeating or not reducing, the stimulus obviously isn't a punishment for them. Building on that, the problem with punishments in the justice system is that they aren't really tailored to the offender. They are generalized, and in a generalized system, it decreases the chance that it will stop any one individual. Unless you find a way to modify it on a case-by-case basis.

Punishments also tend to work in the short term better than long-term.

Another issue is that the research basis often shows that positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement are better behavioural modification tools than punishment and that punishment works best if you address the root causes and intermix it with rewards. The punishment must also be close to the point of offense.

It's not a case that punishment doesn't work. It doesn't work as well as other things, in isolation, and generalized.