> Surveillance is inevitable as a result of technological advancement.
No it isn't. Counter-surveillance is technology too. ISPs now carry the vast majority of communications, but with encryption they can't read them. IR emitters can blind surveillance cameras. They can also be defeated with much simpler technologies, like rocks and hammers.
It matters whether the law protects the people doing the surveillance or the people preventing it.
> But surveillance also means accountability. For both individuals and authorities.
Who are authorities accountable to? The only person who went to jail for the collateral murder video was Julian Assange.
> Deepfakes mean that we will need ways to verify the authenticity and timestamp of recordings. And this will be solved as well.
There is no reason to think so. Even if cameras attempted to authenticate what they produced, anyone who cracked any camera from any manufacturer could then produce forgeries authenticated as being produced by that camera. As could that camera's manufacturer or anyone who compromised their systems. Anyone could also point a camera at a screen with a higher resolution than the camera's and things of that nature.
> This could lead to a world in which violent crime and abuse of authority is almost always recorded.
Members of the Inner Party can turn off the telescreen.
The only question is whether everyone else can too.
Cameras are becoming smaller, cheaper, and higher fidelity alongside parallel improvements in storage, network bandwidth, and batteries. Projecting out long enough, and you are left with the likelihood of cheap ubiquitous and even microscopic surveillance tech. Many new cars are now continuously recording everything in their surroundings. Meta's new Smart Glasses mean individuals will be doing the same.
Not to mention that satellite technology already exists that could see the zits on your nose.
Deepfakes will be solved through a number of means. As a very basic example, the concept of timestamping and sending the hashes to a trusted verifier can help prove that a particular piece of content was produced no later than the timestamp. And quite a lot of knowledge can be gained just from certainty about when something was produced.
No it isn't. Counter-surveillance is technology too. ISPs now carry the vast majority of communications, but with encryption they can't read them. IR emitters can blind surveillance cameras. They can also be defeated with much simpler technologies, like rocks and hammers.
It matters whether the law protects the people doing the surveillance or the people preventing it.
> But surveillance also means accountability. For both individuals and authorities.
Who are authorities accountable to? The only person who went to jail for the collateral murder video was Julian Assange.
> Deepfakes mean that we will need ways to verify the authenticity and timestamp of recordings. And this will be solved as well.
There is no reason to think so. Even if cameras attempted to authenticate what they produced, anyone who cracked any camera from any manufacturer could then produce forgeries authenticated as being produced by that camera. As could that camera's manufacturer or anyone who compromised their systems. Anyone could also point a camera at a screen with a higher resolution than the camera's and things of that nature.
> This could lead to a world in which violent crime and abuse of authority is almost always recorded.
Members of the Inner Party can turn off the telescreen.
The only question is whether everyone else can too.