Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Along the lines of “everyone is breaking some law”, there could be a shift from “technically illegal but generally harmless and tolerated” to “illegal and mindlessly enforced by automated technology”.

An example being China’s automated jaywalking-shamer.




The only “good” outcome of this is we get to know how pervasive surveillance affects behavior and whether the benefits outweigh the detriments. In other words does it result in a better or worse society overall. Even if it’s better overall I’d it worth the negative effects on affected populations?

It’s a living laboratory.


The benefits would have to be impossibly valuable to outweigh the constant burden and psychological damage of living in a totalitarian panopticon.

Given that society functions without it and is constantly improving anyway--crime rates, poverty, mortality continue to drop from socioeconomic and technological development without the need for the intervention of pervasive surveillance--I personally literally cannot conceive of a benefit that would actually be worth it.


True, I do not see it turning out well. But it would be a laboratory into behavioral control. Something like this would eliminate needs for safe spaces, anti/hate speech, etc. because this would regulate all this anti social behavior in the first place.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: