Ethics of The Surveillance Society

[Alyrium Denryle]

In other words, I want to make potential abuse by government, something seen within the last 8 years, as difficult and expensive as possible.

I'll give you one guess as to who actually pays that bill though...

The whole "potential abuse" arguement is irritatingly stupid. You can make that arguement for absolutely anything, whether it's driving, a law enforcement officer, a doctor...a fucking babysitter for fuck's sake.

Anything is subject to potential abuse; what's important is to weigh the positive effects and benefits against the negative effects, 'potential' or otherwise.

If it is expensive, the agency doing it will be fund limited. If it is cheap, they wont be.

I am sorry you miserable little shit, considering the current legal climate, I do not feel comfortable with a database full of information that someone who does not like me could use, government officials or otherwise. It would not take much for a cop that does not like gay people to access the info on gay bar patrons, or for the NSA to illegally obtain data on everyone's whereabouts and pass that information along to the TSA. All it would take is one guy, the president, getting a bug up his ass. Hell, Huckabee, who wanted to amend the constitution to make the US a christian theocracy, won a few states, and you can be damn sure that if we ever had someone like that winning the presidency, the information would be used.

There is no positive effect in the world that can outweigh that risk.

[Singular Intellect]

There is this nasty concept called "zero-tolerance" here in the US where, in fact, the maximum penalty IS applied 100% of the time with no regard to mitigating circumstances. It's how kids get expelled from school for having a plastic butterknife in their school backpack.

If YOUR society hasn't done this bully for you, but MY nation has had locations that did, in fact, indulge in such stupidity so it is not a baseless fear on the part of Americans.

You still haven't answered my question as to why it's assumed zero tolerance goes hand in hand with a high-surveillance society.

You don't currently live in a high-surveillance society, and said zero tolerance system is in place anyway. The existence of zero tolerance is a seperate problem.

If anything, a high-surveillance society would naturally force a greater tolerance system because the minor infractions and problems simply cannot be realistically handled.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*snip*

Doesnt have to be the government fuckwit. Could be a homophobe with an internet connection.

And these culprits are immune with a cloak of invisibility from said system even though it has the ability to track such precise information about their victims...why again?

Hackers manage to hide their tracks now, there is no reason to think they will fail to do so when this system is in place.

Hell, the location tracking alone would be dangerous. Would not nearly need to go so far as to track web traffic.

Now, are you going to make a point, or are you going to continue to fellate your police state?

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is this nasty concept called "zero-tolerance" here in the US where, in fact, the maximum penalty IS applied 100% of the time with no regard to mitigating circumstances. It's how kids get expelled from school for having a plastic butterknife in their school backpack.

If YOUR society hasn't done this bully for you, but MY nation has had locations that did, in fact, indulge in such stupidity so it is not a baseless fear on the part of Americans.

You still haven't answered my question as to why it's assumed zero tolerance goes hand in hand with a high-surveillance society.

You don't currently live in a high-surveillance society, and said zero tolerance system is in place anyway. The existence of zero tolerance is a seperate problem.

If anything, a high-surveillance society would naturally force a greater tolerance system because the minor infractions and problems simply cannot be realistically handled.

You would think that, but policies are not made by sane people. Policies are made in the US by politicians during election year being desperate to appear tough on crime. Zero tolerance policies are not realistically going to go away. If anything they will be expanded and legal inertia will keep them in place long after a high surveilance state is in place.

[Singular Intellect]

If it is expensive, the agency doing it will be fund limited. If it is cheap, they wont be.

I am sorry you miserable little shit, considering the current legal climate, I do not feel comfortable with a database full of information that someone who does not like me could use, government officials or otherwise. It would not take much for a cop that does not like gay people to access the info on gay bar patrons, or for the NSA to illegally obtain data on everyone's whereabouts and pass that information along to the TSA. All it would take is one guy, the president, getting a bug up his ass. Hell, Huckabee, who wanted to amend the constitution to make the US a christian theocracy, won a few states, and you can be damn sure that if we ever had someone like that winning the presidency, the information would be used.

There is no positive effect in the world that can outweigh that risk.

So your country is a utter shithole for abuse when implementing the system because you're surrounded by a bunch of igorant religious fucks. But I'm not particularily concerned about your country nor consider it's fucked up nature to be a direct arguement against the theoritical system being proposed.

Your arguement is nothing more than an arguement for not implementing said system in your own country right at the moment.

[Singular Intellect]

You would think that, but policies are not made by sane people. Policies are made in the US by politicians during election year being desperate to appear tough on crime. Zero tolerance policies are not realistically going to go away. If anything they will be expanded and legal inertia will keep them in place long after a high surveilance state is in place.

So that's your country's problem; it's not one with the hypothetical high-surveillance system being discussed which doesn't necessitate that the US is the only country capable of implementing it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If it is expensive, the agency doing it will be fund limited. If it is cheap, they wont be.

I am sorry you miserable little shit, considering the current legal climate, I do not feel comfortable with a database full of information that someone who does not like me could use, government officials or otherwise. It would not take much for a cop that does not like gay people to access the info on gay bar patrons, or for the NSA to illegally obtain data on everyone's whereabouts and pass that information along to the TSA. All it would take is one guy, the president, getting a bug up his ass. Hell, Huckabee, who wanted to amend the constitution to make the US a christian theocracy, won a few states, and you can be damn sure that if we ever had someone like that winning the presidency, the information would be used.

There is no positive effect in the world that can outweigh that risk.

So your country is a utter shithole for abuse when implementing the system because you're surrounded by a bunch of igorant religious fucks. But I'm not particularily concerned about your country nor consider it's fucked up nature to be a direct arguement against the theoritical system being proposed.

Your arguement is nothing more than an arguement for not implementing said system in your own country right at the moment.

You are damn right it is. Does it not occur to you that whether a system is ethical depends upon the precise nature of the system where it is implemented? If you live in a nice, accepting, happy place like Canada, you can be a bit more cavalier with your privacy rights. The negative impacts wont be as large and the benefits can outweigh the risk. But that is not the case here.

You dont get to say

Anything is subject to potential abuse; what's important is to weigh the positive effects and benefits against the negative effects, 'potential' or otherwise.

And then dismiss the negative effects posed in a potential application.

Pick an argument, and stop trying to move the goal posts.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You would think that, but policies are not made by sane people. Policies are made in the US by politicians during election year being desperate to appear tough on crime. Zero tolerance policies are not realistically going to go away. If anything they will be expanded and legal inertia will keep them in place long after a high surveilance state is in place.

So that's your country's problem; it's not one with the hypothetical high-surveillance system being discussed which doesn't necessitate that the US is the only country capable of implementing it.

Again, you dont get to try to make a utilitarian argument, which you have, and then ignore the precise nature of the application. Whenever you are talking about a policy decision, you dont get to talk about the abstract. You have to put it in context... you have to apply it to a system.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Actually bubble boy, I have a request for you. Pick a coherent ethical system.

This is a utilitarian argument.

what's important is to weigh the positive effects and benefits against the negative effects, 'potential' or otherwise.

This is a deontologist argument, because if you divorce a policy from its context you are divorcing it from its consequences. When you do that the only recourse is to refer to some sort of intrinsic property of the action or intrinsic moral truth.

But I'm not particularily concerned about your country nor consider it's fucked up nature to be a direct arguement against the theoritical system being proposed.

The two are mutually exclusive, unless you are a pragmatist in which case what you are really using is a form of preference-utilitarianism that uses stake-holder input (actual or inferred) to come to a decision. But that is not what you are using in either case.

[Nova Andromeda]

I say Flavian Amphitheatre gladiatorial death match!

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

Possible Contestants?
-Darth Wong, or
-Bubble Boy

vs.

-Alyrium Denryle, or
-Broomstick (love your recipes btw), or
-Morilore




-I'd be willing to pledge a massive(TM) $5 donation in support of said contest (more if no other pledges are forth coming).
-Suggest winner (hmmm ... need judge) gets niffty Sith approved title or something or other.
-I also suggest a specific population (and / or nation) or set of populations (and / or nations) are picked as 'test subjects' for this new surveillance system.

[Singular Intellect]

While a Coliseum match is of some interest, I think it would be obvious that Wong would be the superior opponent.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am a consequentialist. I am happy accepting such a challenge, though in some nation-states would have few issues with such a system's implementation.

On the other hand, there are only a few nations where that is the case. Prejudice and bigotry exists... pretty much everywhere.

[Morilore]

You mean they'd have easier access to information on people they think worthy of scrutiny...which they currently have access to today. What's your point?

Have you never been stopped by a police officer and had them punch in your ID into their car computer so they know who you are?

I have...and doesn't concern me one bit. It would certainly concern someone guilty of a crime though...but how is that a problem?

Minorities and social marginals have a legitimate interest in keeping their everyday affairs as secret as possible even when they have done nothing wrong. They have much more at stake than John Q Whiteguy has. Not everyone who wants to keep secrets from the state is a criminal of some kind.

The word 'duh' comes to mind.

Indeed. Please note that I'm not necessarily opposed to surveillance systems as such; I'm just here to deal with the "only criminals have something to fear" and the related "all I did was visit WallMart, what should I care" arguments.

Yes, because the current lack of a sophisticated monitoring system prevents them from doing that today...oh, wait.

On the other hand, they'd also be under scrutiny with this system, making it harder for them to get away with it and easier to catch trying to do so.

Where's the problem again?

Who watches the watchers? The devil is in the details, as to whether a certain surveillance regime makes it easier or harder for government officials to harass citizens. That's why I disclaimed opposition to surveillance as a concept.

And absolute certainty of no possible abuse became a requirement for implementing extremely useful and protective systems...when again?

I never said that. Please do not strawman me again.

I'm far more concerned about some dumbass drunk driver running my ass over than some government official noting that I bought a chocolate bar at Super Store yesterday.

See above about devils and details.

I wouldn't give a shit if my activity was monitored...chances are the drunk driver likely would however.

Tends to put into perspective what kind of people are all so worried about said system.

And we should concern ourselves with people getting nervous knowing they're being potentially observed...why? Don't you think that says something about what kind of person they are and what kind of intentions they have? Do you get all flustered and nervous when you see cameras in banks or food stores that get close up shots of your face?

Again: some COMPLETELY LAW-ABIDING individuals suffer abuse when information about their completely lawful comings and goings becomes public.

[The Grim Squeaker]

If I might add, one of the "Abuse" angles is that quite simply, Governments change.
The U.K or Canada today are beacons of justice, liberal peace, law enforcement, and masses of CCTV cameras in major cities (At least London is), a fine thing, since giving more power to a good body just makes it more effective (Rather like "good", competent, planning socialist governments and there policies, Nuclear power or railway infrastructure for example).
However, the existence and acceptance of these widespread surveillance measures, and records pose a risk in the long term if the government takes a turn for the worse (Say due to economic depression, war, upheaval due to some catastrophe such as global warming, PO, or a massive loss of global power and influence).
An example that springs to mind is Germany. From beacon of welcoming the Jews, with Berlin being the beacon of the Jewish world (More so than New York in many ways) for centuries, to using ones grandparents' marriage records to justify sending someone to be gassed to death.

I support the idea in principle (Of improved surveillance measures, or at least more secure ones such as biometric passes or genetically/biologically verified ID data), but the potential for abuse needs to be weighed not just against that of the present, but of the future, and as Alyrium said, some of us have a lot to fear from that.

[Darth Wong]

Alyrium, have you considered the fact that all of the preachers and politicians' whereabouts would also be recorded? Including any of their own trips to adult video stores, gay bars, trysts in airport bathrooms, etc?

There is no way that the people in power would allow this kind of information to be so readily available, or continue ramping up penalties for activities they clandestinely engage in themselves.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm wondering how long it would take for some unscrupulous asshole to sell the recordings of people in key demographics to companies who would then use it to do further targeting of advertising, like what they are trying to do now on the Internet.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I wonder if there's any use for privacy laws, when a government could wantonly break it and call it national security issue or anything and get away with it when there's enough political support.

[Darth Wong]

I'm wondering how long it would take for some unscrupulous asshole to sell the recordings of people in key demographics to companies who would then use it to do further targeting of advertising, like what they are trying to do now on the Internet.

In a hypothetical high-surveillance society, it would actually be much more difficult for spammers and scammers to operate. Identity theft, for example, would be far easier to prosecute, because you would be able to much more easily track the person trying to make fraudulent transactions.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium, have you considered the fact that all of the preachers and politicians' whereabouts would also be recorded? Including any of their own trips to adult video stores, gay bars, trysts in airport bathrooms, etc?

There is no way that the people in power would allow this kind of information to be so readily available, or continue ramping up penalties for activities they clandestinely engage in themselves.

My argument is not predicated on the politicians necessarily. 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.

What I am primarily concerned with is that security measures cannot even keep our vital documents like credit card numbers secret, and I am pretty sure they will be inadequate to conceal say... the license plate numbers at a local gay bar.

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.

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.

[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.

[Broomstick]

*snip*

Doesnt have to be the government fuckwit. Could be a homophobe with an internet connection.

And these culprits are immune with a cloak of invisibility from said system even though it has the ability to track such precise information about their victims...why again?

It would be cold comfort to me if the system was 100% effective at catching the people who, due to bigotry, beat me up on a weekly basis. Most people would find the state of not being a victim preferable to perfect justice post-assault.

[Broomstick]

There is this nasty concept called "zero-tolerance" here in the US where, in fact, the maximum penalty IS applied 100% of the time with no regard to mitigating circumstances. It's how kids get expelled from school for having a plastic butterknife in their school backpack.

If YOUR society hasn't done this bully for you, but MY nation has had locations that did, in fact, indulge in such stupidity so it is not a baseless fear on the part of Americans.

You still haven't answered my question as to why it's assumed zero tolerance goes hand in hand with a high-surveillance society.

I never said that zero-tolerance went "hand in hand" with a surveillance society, I stated that it was a possibility. Improve your reading comprehension.

You don't currently live in a high-surveillance society, and said zero tolerance system is in place anyway. The existence of zero tolerance is a seperate problem.

If anything, a high-surveillance society would naturally force a greater tolerance system because the minor infractions and problems simply cannot be realistically handled.

And why do you say that?

There are people with such a love of rules and enforced order they don't give a fuck who gets caught in the cracks (Marina and her draconian solutions to problems is our example here).

If a place already has zero-tolerance and puts in place a surveillance society what the hell makes you think the system will become more tolerant? Why not calls for MORE enforcement?

[Broomstick]

If it is expensive, the agency doing it will be fund limited. If it is cheap, they wont be.

I am sorry you miserable little shit, considering the current legal climate, I do not feel comfortable with a database full of information that someone who does not like me could use, government officials or otherwise. It would not take much for a cop that does not like gay people to access the info on gay bar patrons, or for the NSA to illegally obtain data on everyone's whereabouts and pass that information along to the TSA. All it would take is one guy, the president, getting a bug up his ass. Hell, Huckabee, who wanted to amend the constitution to make the US a christian theocracy, won a few states, and you can be damn sure that if we ever had someone like that winning the presidency, the information would be used.

There is no positive effect in the world that can outweigh that risk.

So your country is a utter shithole for abuse when implementing the system because you're surrounded by a bunch of igorant religious fucks. But I'm not particularily concerned about your country

Well, I am because, you know, I live here.

Although I am pleased to say that the entire place isn't insane, just parts of it.

Your arguement is nothing more than an arguement for not implementing said system in your own country right at the moment.

Precisely. That is why there is significant resistance to the idea in the US at this time.

[Dahak]

I personally think there are many things wrong with a surveillance state.

As been mentioned before, states change. If anything, Germany has shown how quickly a democracy can turn into a dictatorship. Now, the collected information might be completely innocent, but will it stay that way? Also, the former GDR with the Ministry of State Security showed how a surveillance state can be. A lot of people where put into prisons for saying or doing things the regime found unpleasant; not even in your own house people were safe. That is a lot of potential power to give into hands that are not guaranteed to stay benevolent.

And I don't know about most people, but I certainly would behave slightly different in an environment that is under surveillance. I do now, when I know I am observed. And apart from that, I don't think the knowledge (or fear) of constant surveillance is doing awfully good things for your mental health...

[Metatwaddle]

Alyrium, have you considered the fact that all of the preachers and politicians' whereabouts would also be recorded? Including any of their own trips to adult video stores, gay bars, trysts in airport bathrooms, etc?

There is no way that the people in power would allow this kind of information to be so readily available, or continue ramping up penalties for activities they clandestinely engage in themselves.

You'd be surprised. RI tells me that the shitheaded "marriage amendment" came up in Congress again, sponsored by Larry Craig and David Vitter (the Republican senator from Louisiana who was caught in the D.C. Madam scandal). Eliot Spitzer prosecuted people involved in prostitution rings.

That doesn't speak to whether people like Craig make the information about those things (prostitution, gay bathroom sex, etc.) more available. But it wouldn't surprise me if they would support increased information availability just out of paranoia: if they don't support every last measure that would seem to make gay people's lives more miserable, people will realize that they sympathize with teh gays, and someone will discover that they're actually gay.