I believe that a society needs the ability to forget the transgressions of people. This gives us the ability as individuals to grow, otherwise we will be narrowly cast into a role that will determined by actions years ago or in our youth.
I know many will overreact and bring out extreme examples of murder or serious violent crimes. Yet that is not what those who are utilizing these tools are going after and prosecuting. They are generally minor or petty crimes, at least that I have read about so far. It seems like an overzealous us of a tool for perfunctory government twerps to feel empowered and make a case for their continued existence...not at all beneficial in the short or long term
"I believe that a society needs the ability to forget the transgressions of people."
I hope that's not true, because if it is, our society is doomed.
The continued development of smaller and cheaper sensors means that our "choice" is between a world in which no one has privacy, or in which only special entities of some sort do. The attempt to protect privacy is one with the attempt to stop information sharing of all other kinds -- possible for specific instances, but not for the general case.
> "I believe that a society needs the ability to forget the transgressions of people."
>> I hope that's not true, because if it is, our society is doomed.
I don't think he means what you think he means. I think he means "forgive" the transgressions of people, because who should be punished for the phases we go through in high school or college trying to figure out who we are? I would wager that most people went through at least one period that they are now embarrassed about. Probably the most common would be people who drank to much and acted out but have since figured out that drinking for them is not a good idea and so don't do it.
There is a huge difference between "forgive" and "forget".
As parent notes "forget" isn't going to happen. That is a relic of the past. So we need to "forgive" (or even tolerate, or accept, some things that maybe aren't so bad after all.)
The last sentence is clumsily written if that's what you mean eruditely [with erudition; in an erudite manner;] I didn't take the time to make it shorter.
The biggest problem with the mass spying/information gathering is that it's done in secret, with no real checks and balances, can't be challenged, and you might not even know when it's used against you. Plus, the people who abuse it escape unpunished. All of these are creating a very dangerous government.
Solve all of those problems, and maybe the fact that everything is not so private anymore wouldn't be such a big problem. But that's going to take many decades to fix, and until then I'd rather try to stop the mass spying, by repealing the laws allowing it and cutting their funding.
I agree with this, except I think the time frame is more like one decade. By 2020 (to pick a nice number), I expect that people will generally expect that they are being recorded at all times in public. It's almost true that they are, now, but the expectation is lagging.
It just amazes me how anxiety inducing this is even when I have nothing to hide. Realistically everyone commits many crimes without even realizing it. My fear is this will allow essentially arbitrary arrests.
our "choice" is between a world in which no one has privacy, or in which only special entities of some sort do.
No, no matter how widespread access to surveillance information becomes, the powerful will still be able to keep privacy for themselves. Don't want to be tracked while you go shopping? Hire someone to do it for you and let all of their actions get fed into Big Data.
No doubt people with more influence will be able to limit the repercussions of actions that would ruin others, yet pretty much anyone who has influence is bound to want to use it, and by its nature anything that is disruptive is likely to upset yet some other person who has influence.
Take for example David Petraeus. His career may have been only collateral damage of an investigation that took advantage of records of drafts and IP addresses used to log into gmail. He may have felt sincerely honor bound to resign, and his career may resurrect itself, especially if his party is about to nominate some of its most crazy for the presidential election. However, it is at least possible to imagine that people who were happy to see him lose influence wouldn't have been eager to stick out their own necks to sweep everything under the rug.
I think there are at least a couple broad categories of people who have different relationships with power and surveillance. You can be wealthy, enjoying your wealth and no threat to anyone else with influence, or you may be someone who has the resources to effect the change you think the world needs.
Once upon a time monarchs put aside their differences in attempts to hunt down regicides, but on other days they occupied themselves with trying to conquer each others' realms.
I know many will overreact and bring out extreme examples of murder or serious violent crimes. Yet that is not what those who are utilizing these tools are going after and prosecuting. They are generally minor or petty crimes, at least that I have read about so far. It seems like an overzealous us of a tool for perfunctory government twerps to feel empowered and make a case for their continued existence...not at all beneficial in the short or long term