Ethics of The Surveillance Society

[Darth Wong]

I have often been accused of being an apologist for the surveillance society, because I have no problem with things like cameras covering all public areas, police knowing about your whereabouts, universal fingerprinting and DNA databases, etc.

Can someone explain why such a relatively high-surveillance society would be such a bad thing?

[Kodiak]

I really can't. In The Minority Report I thought one of the most ingenious aspects of society were the retinal scanners all over the place that were used for surveillance, advertising, identification, and even storing personal information. Can you imagine how easy it would be to police a nation where criminals could be found anytime they walked into a convenience store through some sort of photo matching software? It'd be a heck of a lot safer for all of us.

Incidentally, I ran into this instrucables a couple of days ago which shows how to make a hat that renders ones face invisible on any sort of camera. Seemed related.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I have often been accused of being an apologist for the surveillance society, because I have no problem with things like cameras covering all public areas, police knowing about your whereabouts, universal fingerprinting and DNA databases, etc.

Can someone explain why such a relatively high-surveillance society would be such a bad thing?

Surveillance systems are tools, which can be used or misused according to the intents of the developers. I, like most Americans, oppose them because I don't trust my government. If your government is actually trustworthy, unlike that of the United States (Which I think has been born out in recent years!), there is likely no objection.

[Ace Pace]

I really can't. In The Minority Report I thought one of the most ingenious aspects of society were the retinal scanners all over the place that were used for surveillance, advertising, identification, and even storing personal information. Can you imagine how easy it would be to police a nation where criminals could be found anytime they walked into a convenience store through some sort of photo matching software? It'd be a heck of a lot safer for all of us.

Theres also the downside. Ethically, I don't think theres anything wrong. Practically, such an effort would be incredibly prone to abuse, data leakage and other things. Creating a system immune to that will probably be harder than the system itself.

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't mind a lot of the things that would offer expanded surveillance in public, like cameras covering all public places and the like. Nor do I mind things like a universal fingerprint and DNA database.

I'm more concerned about surveillance on areas of private space, like having the government (hypothetically) being able to tap your phone or record your e-mails (or put a keylogger on your computer, or the like). The last time something like that happened, it was abused to all hell by people like the FBI under J.Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon for political purposes and personal gain.

[Darth Ruinus]

Theres also the downside. Ethically, I don't think theres anything wrong. Practically, such an effort would be incredibly prone to abuse, data leakage and other things. Creating a system immune to that will probably be harder than the system itself.

No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean we ignore the upsides in favor of paying all the downsides all the attention.

[Darth Wong]

Theres also the downside. Ethically, I don't think theres anything wrong. Practically, such an effort would be incredibly prone to abuse, data leakage and other things. Creating a system immune to that will probably be harder than the system itself.

How is that kind of information any more prone to data leakage than the income tax and financial records which you already have, and which are currently the target of all sorts of identity theft schemes?

[Rye]

In principle, I have no issues with it. I do not trust the idiocy of the common man and mob politics. Take the Max Mosley feeding frenzy. F1 boss gets filmed having kinky sex with a load of hookers. I would hope society wouldn't care, but instead it's a modern freakshow. Everyone's all "holy shit! he does this thing that a mountain of evidence shows is really common in britain!" like it has an impact on us.

Given the gossipy, media-led, bullshit nature of both the public and our beneficent overseers, I'm not wild about massive surveillance (because it will undoubtedly be controlled in part at least by people who are dictated by gossip), and that's not even touching the niggling suspicion I have for a resurgence of the far right in Europe or the UK.

There's also quite a few that are too shit to have any impact on crime.

[Darth Wong]

I have often been accused of being an apologist for the surveillance society, because I have no problem with things like cameras covering all public areas, police knowing about your whereabouts, universal fingerprinting and DNA databases, etc.

Can someone explain why such a relatively high-surveillance society would be such a bad thing?

Surveillance systems are tools, which can be used or misused according to the intents of the developers. I, like most Americans, oppose them because I don't trust my government. If your government is actually trustworthy, unlike that of the United States (Which I think has been born out in recent years!), there is likely no objection.

What harm is the government going to do with this information? If they know that I was at the Home Depot yesterday afternoon, so what? If they know what my fingerprints look like, so what? If they can see me walking down the street, so what?

[Morilore]

What harm is the government going to do with this information? If they know that I was at the Home Depot yesterday afternoon, so what? If they know what my fingerprints look like, so what? If they can see me walking down the street, so what?

What if they knew that you visited a gay strip club two weeks ago? What if they knew you go to a mosque every once in a while? I supposed that rather depends on who "they" are, doesn't it?

[CaptainChewbacca]

In Robert Sawyer's 'The Neanderthal Parallax', the neanderthals had created a total surveilance society.

Every member wore an AI computer which, among other things, continuously broadcast a movie of the wearer's surroundings to a recording device at a remote location, and also functioned as a homing device/transponder. If any criminal activity happened to or around a person, the authorities could review the recording and see what happened.

Thanks to super-optical-whatever, the thing produced an external view, so sneaking up 'behind' someone wouldn't work. Only the wearer of a device or someone they designated could review a recording log without legal authorization.

Of course, the possibilities of exploitation are nightmarish, and there ARE kinds of crime that occurred in that society, but its worth thinking about.

[Singular Intellect]

What harm is the government going to do with this information? If they know that I was at the Home Depot yesterday afternoon, so what? If they know what my fingerprints look like, so what? If they can see me walking down the street, so what?

Finally, someone who says exactly what I think as well.

As far as I'm concerned, the only people who are so 'worried' about this system are those who know they are doing something wrong or that getting away with criminal acitvity is going to be so much harder.

Who the fuck is going to care about your mundane life, anyhow?

[Singular Intellect]

What if they knew that you visited a gay strip club two weeks ago?

Again, who's going to give a fuck? What if someone sees you going to gay strip club two weeks ago? What the fuck makes other forms of such knowledge so much less harmful?

What if they knew you go to a mosque every once in a while?

Who's going to care so much that they couldn't have gotten this information by simply knowing you or seeing you do so conventionally? You think because such knowledge is written down or stored on a computer somewhere it suddenly becomes more dangerous?

I supposed that rather depends on who "they" are, doesn't it?

Yes, I'm well aware of the horrific image people like you have of evil cackling government officials numbering in the thousands secretly watching the lives of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens all at once.

[Singular Intellect]

Every member wore an AI computer which, among other things, continuously broadcast a movie of the wearer's surroundings to a recording device at a remote location, and also functioned as a homing device/transponder. If any criminal activity happened to or around a person, the authorities could review the recording and see what happened.

Thanks to super-optical-whatever, the thing produced an external view, so sneaking up 'behind' someone wouldn't work. Only the wearer of a device or someone they designated could review a recording log without legal authorization.

Sounds like a system I'd love to have; never mind people who've been kidnapped, assaulted, raped, robbed, lost, etc, etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Now, bear in mind, I support comprehensive DNA databases, Fingerprint databases and medical record databases accessible by law enforcement (provided it cannot be used for discriminatory purposes, with the med records held by the AMA rather than the feds directly)

I also dont mind the cameras in public places. If you are in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

It is the location, purchasing and other tracking I take issue with. It is not because I have some silly notion of absolute right to privacy (I view it as a useful legal construct) it is because of the potential for abuse.

If the last eight years have taught us anything, it is that we cannot trust those in power. We cannot even trust our government to get warrants before they tap our phones, or... you know... charge us with a crime before throwing us in prison. Hell thanks to an executive order our government can freeze the assets of anyone even tangentially related to terrorism. For example: the tech support guy.

I engage in political and non-political activities that are vulnerable to an unscrupulous government taking offense. I frequent gay bars, liberal protests, attend meetings, conferences etc. A great deal of which, the wrong administration may find objectionable. Considering the lack of civil liberties we have in the US now, and how our executive branch is perfectly comfortable flouting the laws that try to protect us, I do not want to try to leave the country to collect specimens in say... Guatamala or Indonesia, and be on a no-fly list and not know why, or have my assets frozen etc etc.

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

[Morilore]

Again, who's going to give a fuck? What if someone sees you going to gay strip club two weeks ago? What the fuck makes other forms of such knowledge so much less harmful?

The police, who presumably would be in control of this system due to it's role in the maintenance of public order, have powers of intimidation and abuse greater than those of ordinary citizens. In a high-surveillance society, this information would come directly to them without them having to seek it out.

Who's going to care so much that they couldn't have gotten this information by simply knowing you or seeing you do so conventionally? You think because such knowledge is written down or stored on a computer somewhere it suddenly becomes more dangerous?

Well, I suppose that if the data sits their un-viewed under normal circumstances and requires authorization to peruse it, that would be a practical safeguard against abuse, and the most natural way to do it as well.

Yes, I'm well aware of the horrific image people like you have of evil cackling government officials numbering in the thousands secretly watching the lives of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens all at once.

No, genius, I'm thinking about that one guy in the squad car who has a grudge against gays, that one guy in charge of XYZ who's a member of a fundamentalist church with links to abortion bombers. I'm thinking about elements of the system that allow your local insane waste of oxygen to abuse it in order to harass undesirables. I'm thinking about every time we read about some astonishing story of abuse or neglect coming out of Florida and whether widespread surveillance would help or hurt it.

All this said, upon reflection I don't think these dangers concerning cameras in public places outweigh the benefits to law enforcement, depending on how the data is reviewed and assuming basic competence. My intention here was to point out that certain social undesirables might be understandably more reluctant to let random strangers know of their comings and goings than Mike Wong, but others have made that point better than I.

[Singular Intellect]

Again, who's going to give a fuck? What if someone sees you going to gay strip club two weeks ago? What the fuck makes other forms of such knowledge so much less harmful?

The police, who presumably would be in control of this system due to it's role in the maintenance of public order, have powers of intimidation and abuse greater than those of ordinary citizens. In a high-surveillance society, this information would come directly to them without them having to seek it out.

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?

Who's going to care so much that they couldn't have gotten this information by simply knowing you or seeing you do so conventionally? You think because such knowledge is written down or stored on a computer somewhere it suddenly becomes more dangerous?

Well, I suppose that if the data sits their un-viewed under normal circumstances and requires authorization to peruse it, that would be a practical safeguard against abuse, and the most natural way to do it as well.

The word 'duh' comes to mind.

Yes, I'm well aware of the horrific image people like you have of evil cackling government officials numbering in the thousands secretly watching the lives of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens all at once.

No, genius, I'm thinking about that one guy in the squad car who has a grudge against gays, that one guy in charge of XYZ who's a member of a fundamentalist church with links to abortion bombers.

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?

I'm thinking about elements of the system that allow your local insane waste of oxygen to abuse it in order to harass undesirables.

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

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.

I'm thinking about every time we read about some astonishing story of abuse or neglect coming out of Florida and whether widespread surveillance would help or hurt it.

All this said, upon reflection I don't think these dangers concerning cameras in public places outweigh the benefits to law enforcement, depending on how the data is reviewed and assuming basic competence. My intention here was to point out that certain social undesirables might be understandably more reluctant to let random strangers know of their comings and goings than Mike Wong, but others have made that point better than I.

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?

[Singular Intellect]

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.

[Broomstick]

I'm becoming more and more in favor of identity markers that can not be falsified - for example, fingerprints and DNA (you can not use DNA alone because of identical twins and triplets, and in another thread we touched briefly on the chimera issue).

However, there are a couple of cultural issues here that other nations may not share. For one thing, when I was growing up, only two sorts of people got fingerprinted: law enforcement and criminals. If you weren't law enforcement, if you were asked for prints quite a few people would have the knee-jerk reaction that they were being treated as/considered criminal. There is still some of this attitude around. If everyone, without exception, must be fingerprinted then this mitigates this somewhat.

Another cultural issue in the US is that for every rabid patriot there is at least one citizen harboring a deep and abiding mistrust of the government. It is no secret that the US government has broken promises both large and small. This fear is not baseless.

There are also a sizable number of people who came here as refugees fleeing for their lives. The mother of one of my friends bitterly resisted being assigned any sort of identification number by anyone for any reason, but most especially the government, for her entire adult life. I can't help but think the number tattoed onto her arm at Auschwitz might have had something to do with that. Again, this sort of fear is not entirely baseless, nor is it limited to people of US origin. Maybe I should add that she was not Jewish but an Austrian Lutheran - you don't have to be a minority to have that sort of shit happen to you.

As for those of you who say "who cares if I go to a gay bar?" - well, I remember my sister getting her tires slashed and rocks thrown through her windows because she was lesbian and out. There are people who hate those who they perceive as different or dangerous. Unless you advocate all homosexuals wear a sign around their neck saying "I am gay" you probably understand that sometimes you just want to keep your life private from people who probably won't like you.

Really, the objections seem to boil down to concerns about abuse of such a system and such knowledge. While it sounds wonderful as far as crime solving goes, imagine a woman being stalked who's pursuer manages to access the information/camera system - how could she escape?

So... what is the system used for? Just surveillance and monitoring? Or for social control? What are the safeguards against abuse and data leakage or theft?

And finally, yes, there are people with something to hide - most of us, in fact, have various minor things we'd rather not admit to. Running a stop sign or red light, for example.... if you've been driving more than a couple years you have almost certainly done this. Do you really want a system where every such mistake is caught and penalized? Well, if the fine is $50... but what if it's raised to $500? or $1000? Do you really want a zero-tolerance driving enforcement?

And those who, say, smoke a little weed on occasion... do you really want that on tape? Sure, some people will say breaking the law is breaking the law, but frankly, the system couldn't handle the sheer number of people if EVERYONE who tokes was hauled in next Tuesday. So it then becomes selective enforcement... and what's the criteria? You're an undesirable for some other reason and this because the convenient excuse to put you away? That a lot of people with a little bit of sin to hide. Given the draconian drug laws in some places there's reason to hide such sins.

So, for a "surveillance society", I'd want to see the following:

1) The system is extremely accurate.
2) There are excellent safeguards against abuse/data theft.

[Darth Wong]

So, for a "surveillance society", I'd want to see the following:

1) The system is extremely accurate.
2) There are excellent safeguards against abuse/data theft.

You know, in a hypothetical high-surveillance society, it would also be easier to catch malcontents within the police department itself too. As for your earlier idea about getting nailed for every traffic infraction, it would be a small price to pay for all of the hyper-aggressive drivers getting nailed: you know, those assholes who weave in and out of traffic, use an ending lane as a way to pass cars, tailgate, etc. Not to mention gridlockers, who never get in trouble.

[Broomstick]

My concern is twofold on the traffic issue. First, zero-tolerance - we all make mistakes, and sometimes, in order to avoid an accident, you may need to do something that ordinarily is not proper. Second, if the fine for an infraction that causes no harm and is not habitual - running a red light for the first time, or perhaps once every 5 years or 10 years, where no one gets hurt - is not draconian then I could get on board but here in the US we already have the problem of municipalities upping the fines on minor infractions as a means of generating revenue.

I agree, though, that if there were consistent penalties for things like aggressive driving or speeding that there would be much less of these things.

And while such a system should, in theory, make it easier to ferret out malcontents and abusers in the enforcement system, it would also make it easier to single out, round up, and eliminate undesirables. I suspect this fear - again, not baseless as the 20th Century provides historical examples - accounts for resistance against surveillance among people like Jews and homosexuals. I think such concerns, based on historical oppression, should not be lightly dismissed but rather taken seriously when developing systems and the safeguards for them.

[Singular Intellect]

So, for a "surveillance society", I'd want to see the following:

1) The system is extremely accurate.
2) There are excellent safeguards against abuse/data theft.

You know, in a hypothetical high-surveillance society, it would also be easier to catch malcontents within the police department itself too. As for your earlier idea about getting nailed for every traffic infraction, it would be a small price to pay for all of the hyper-aggressive drivers getting nailed: you know, those assholes who weave in and out of traffic, use an ending lane as a way to pass cars, tailgate, etc. Not to mention gridlockers, who never get in trouble.

It also assumes that people get punished 100% of the time with maximum penalties...if you have a record of good driving and happen to accidently run a red light, there is no reason that leniency is out of the question.

Why people assume that a high-surveillance society means you would get dragged out of your car and shot in the head (so to speak) is beyond me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Again, who's going to give a fuck? What if someone sees you going to gay strip club two weeks ago? What the fuck makes other forms of such knowledge so much less harmful?

Look you miserable fuckwit, you are young, and I dont think you have ever been harassed or beaten for being gay. I have.

It was not long ago when police would routinely raid gay bars and arrest anyone sitting to close to eachother.

Some gay people and transexuals are not out. Some cannot afford to be out. What happens if the wrong person gets hold of this information? It could be a cop, it could be a person with the motivation and deep pockets, could just be a little guy who is good at getting into government databases. You cant do much with someone's DNA and fingerprints. What are they going to do? Harass you because you have a synonymous substitution within your copy of cytochrome C?

But with the other info? Sure. They can harass you, call your workplace and out you, if they are a cop they can harass you.

I would rather not have a database with all of my information, because there are some places I am just not safe being out of the damn closet.

Well, I suppose that if the data sits their un-viewed under normal circumstances and requires authorization to peruse it, that would be a practical safeguard against abuse, and the most natural way to do it as well.

Cant exactly guard against hacking.

Who's going to care so much that they couldn't have gotten this information by simply knowing you or seeing you do so conventionally? You think because such knowledge is written down or stored on a computer somewhere it suddenly becomes more dangerous?

Yes idiot. I can control who sees me go into a gay bar, or attend a conference. I can buy my porn in secret etc, with my library book selection being between me and the librarian. If the data is stored, anyone can get at it, without having to stalk you individually. They can get information on large demographic groups much more easily than if they had to go around the gay bar taking down license plates every night.

Yes, I'm well aware of the horrific image people like you have of evil cackling government officials numbering in the thousands secretly watching the lives of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens all at once.

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

[Broomstick]

So, for a "surveillance society", I'd want to see the following:

1) The system is extremely accurate.
2) There are excellent safeguards against abuse/data theft.

You know, in a hypothetical high-surveillance society, it would also be easier to catch malcontents within the police department itself too. As for your earlier idea about getting nailed for every traffic infraction, it would be a small price to pay for all of the hyper-aggressive drivers getting nailed: you know, those assholes who weave in and out of traffic, use an ending lane as a way to pass cars, tailgate, etc. Not to mention gridlockers, who never get in trouble.

It also assumes that people get punished 100% of the time with maximum penalties...if you have a record of good driving and happen to accidently run a red light, there is no reason that leniency is out of the question.

Why people assume that a high-surveillance society means you would get dragged out of your car and shot in the head (so to speak) is beyond me.

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.

[Singular Intellect]

*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?