<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 8/28/10 1:22 AM, Sergio M.L. Tarrero wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>This is my first post to this list in a very long time. I
happened to open up this mailbox today, and what I saw compelled
me to write.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Very thoughtful observations, Samantha. I totally concur.
Particularly with your comments in the last paragraph, following
your questions.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In case some people here have not read it, the Lifeboat
Foundation has a program which advocates sousveillance via all
kinds of sensors, from the large to the very tiny. It's
currently called the Security Preserver: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lifeboat.com/ex/security.preserver">http://lifeboat.com/ex/security.preserver</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The trouble with the Security Preserve is that it seemingly falls
for the notion that threat of terrorism trumps any other danger and
that sacrificing our freedom to avoid it is justified. It isn't.
The loss of freedom is many orders of magnitude the greater
danger. This is also a general problem I have with many Lifeboat
entries. There is little quantification of the actual magnitude of
the risk that very expensive and sometimes quite dangerous
countermeasures are recommended for. More risk-benefit analysis is
needed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the resons that you well point out (namely, that we
really <i>want</i> to have the freedom to record our lives,
everything that we see and hear, to begin with, or it's going
to turn into even more of a logistical nightmare; etc.), I
have advocated for transparency for a quite a while now.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Transparency alone is (a)very unlikely in that those in power
(government) claim more rights to monitor everything about us than
they allow us regarding their own actions and (b) just transparency
will not stop massive persecution of victimless crimes and other
abuses and (c) full transparency with no safeguards would be the end
of any discretion and most competition. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> I have also advocated for mutual accountability, and
sousveillance. We may still have a window of opportunity to
push for reform of our legal systems to allow for such--but
we'd better start soon, because it's not going to be easy to
convince bureaucrats and lawmakers, and people in positions of
high power in general, who are still living in the past (and,
somewhat, the present) that this is what needs to be done.
Top-down surveillance, such a police surveillance and
surveillance by intelligence agencies, may stop some crime,
and some terrorism... so it cannot be avoided, nor regarded as
totally a bad thing.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The current set of capabilities really is a bad thing. The notion
that everything you say or do even privately is to be open to
government means that that by design very unequal power relationship
is not much more dangerous to you. Compared to the real threat of
terrorism or actual crime it is a very bad thing indeed that people,
all people, are presumed possibly guilty. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> But we all know that, depending on the particular agent or
agency doing the surveillance (within the system), the
particular state doing it (and its values and goals), and even
down to the particular individual doing it (or using the
information to give orders), and so on, it can breed
oppression of the worst kind--and it often has, in the past.
The power and resources of a state, and a multitude of cameras
and mics spread over a city or country (or beyond), against an
individual.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
With modern surveillance it would be much much more oppressive if or
rather when it goes bad than anything in the past. Imagine a Stalin
with say, a surveillance system an order of magnitude more intrusive
than in some parts of Britain today. As it is the US, that
supposed bastion of freedom, locks up more of its population than
any other nation, ever, and mostly (roughly 60%) for using or
trafficking in an unapproved weed. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Given our unusual and changing circumstances, and given the
level of <i>threats</i> that we are starting to encounter in
the world (and they are only going to get worse with more
advanced technologies with potential for
genocide), sousveillance, if set up correctly, can be a good
thing. Some good things about it that immediately come to
mind:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am much, much less worried about some madman with some supposedly
uber tech of tomorrow than I am about destruction directly or
indirectly by growing global police states and hyper-government.
The first is only hypothetical while the latter is historically all
too real a danger. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Open source monitoring and police work. By pooling on the
eyes, ears and brains (and cameras, mics, sensors,
computers...) of the populace, it becomes much easier to spot
foes, terrorists (or those promoting terrorist
mindsets/activities), </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What? What is a "terrorist mindset/activity"? It is whatever the
authorities claim it is, no? The US after 911 had a very hard time
coming up with a definition of terrorism that didn't make even those
they did not want to call terrorist, especially the government
itself, a terrorist. According to current executive orders the
government can call anyone a terrorist they please and do pretty
much whatever they want with them without a lot of due process in
the way. If we are going to enforce anti-terrorism or anything else
we best at least be very very clear on what is and is not
punishable. The last thing I want is a global TIPS of everyone
being a spy for the current regime. Especially on poorly defined
terms. The DHS in the US has advised several agencies and law
enforcement to watch out for those "potential terrorists" that talk
about the Constitution, for instance. DANGER.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>active criminals (of the kind that hurt or plan to hurt <i>others</i>
or their property, women, children...),</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Criminals defined as people that actually initiate force, yes. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> nasty polluting corporations, and so on. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Pollution and what is and is not allowed is another that could use a
great deal of clarification.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Once it becomes fashionable for people in mass numbers to
record their lives much more intensely (initially with simple
devices such as video-recording glasses), the wiggle room for
people who hurt others or endanger others' lives (I am always
annoyed and amazed by what some people get away with, day
after day, while driving their death machines...),
automatically and radically shrinks. So much so, in fact, the
eventually it simply does not pay to do such things... and
those who take their chances and choose to do it, would live
much more paranoid lives (which would also raise some flags in
people around them), try to avoid being watched or recorded
(more flags),</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Sure, but wait a second. We hyper H+ folks are a radical minority.
Most of the democratic voters are very very opposed to much we are
for or at least some of us are for. In such a world, without
changes to what powers the majority have over minorities, wouldn't
our own dreams and agendas more likely be crushed? Where is the
ability to act by one's own lights regardless of approval or
disapproval in such a world? Do we get into democratic lockstep of
public opinion?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> and mostly end up being psychologically so uncomfortable
with it that they may desist in their ways. Or else... they
may simply get caught doing harm or planning to do harm to
others.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Or simply bulding and AGI others may find scary to contemplate under
any circumstances. Or insisting on the right to live by one's own
understanding with other similarly thinking people. If the mass of
people can see everything the state does but the state has a
monopoly on initiation of force and much much more powerful weapons
in any case, then how is simple sousveillance a sufficient check on
the state?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Preventing police abuse.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
See above. Police states want people to know how badly people "get
it" if they step out of line re the state's wishes.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>- Preventing abuse by employers and corporations of their
workers.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
How about the other way around? You won't slack off much if you
want to keep your job I imagine. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Documentation of human rights and animal rights
violations at home and abroad, for use by the appropriate
policing organizations</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It very much depends on what are and are not legitimate enforceable
rights. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> (ideally, imo, international organizations such as those
encharged of human and animal rights issues today,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The average of all government on a world basis is even more
problematic than what I have to deal with today and would make it
impossible to "vote with one's feet".<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> but with much more enforcement powers than they have
today... merely giving recommendations and fines, way after
the fact, to the nations committing such or allowing such to
happen within their borders, is definitely not enough to stop
the crimes).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again the huge issue to address is to minimize as much as possible
the list of what is a crime and make sure what remains is wrong on
clear and unambiguous principles. All else must be prohibited to
be punished as a crime. Else total surveillance is hideously evil
and dangerous. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>- Focused sousveillance of those in positions of power, and
particularly those in positions of high power.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
And this would do what? Remember that 95% or so of all modern
democratic governments is not subject to election. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> We are all human beings (for now). A lot of power can be
concentrated in specific people or groups--this is not the
best situation, but that's just the way things are. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Considering the normal distribution of IQ and the complexities of
the modern world I am not sure that having power spread out evenly
to everyone would be preferable except for the great deal of this
"power" is illegitimate power over the freedom of others. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>However, these people or groups should not be allowed by
the majority to live in total unaccountability and secrecy...
particularly because their actions, their 'conspiring', and so
on, affect many others' lives, sometimes in very deep ways. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Counter argument I don't necessarily hold: Suppose only the few
understand a problem well enough to see a possible solution.
Further suppose that the majority of the people can't or won't
understand the problem or will be so opposed to its only real
solution that you can't tell them the truth or they would deny it.
Then, if you have no secrecy at all, can you move at all to resolve
the issue? <br>
<br>
2nd counter: You wish to exploit near earth asteroids for
materials, volatiles, buliding out space infrastructure and so on
along with a group of well-financed individuals. The governments of
the world are opposed. Is there any way you can conspire to do it
or anything else that you may see as an utterly good and necessary
thing against their will while under total surveillance?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Their decisions can mean the life, imprisonment, or death
of some (or sometimes many, sometimes many many) other human
beings.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes. And perhaps, if you could really force it, which you cannot,
total transparency of their activities would get a lot of them
rather summarily (and perhaps violently) removed from their
positions. But, they would see you coming and would have both
fabulous intelligence and much more power than you. It is not
likely to end well.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>- Huge employment opportunities. Very few people could
afford, or be inclined to, without compensation, donate a lot
of their precious lifetime to become sousveillance agents.
So... as the opportunities for employment decrease with time,
particularly as technology starts taking more and more jobs
from the economy, there seems to be a niche there which could
potentially grow indefinitely.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What for? Paid snitches? Paid by whom? And the surveillance gear
would be automated and much more dependable than people running the
gear by hand. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> It would be nice if, once given the appropriate training
and certification, any decent person could engage, maybe with
greatly loose, open schedules (or no schedule at all... you do
it when you want to do it... you can consider it a "back-up
job" that is always there), on sur/sousveillance activities. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
*shudders*<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Always in groups of at least 3 people (who don't know each
other), chosen at random from a huge pool of sousveillance
"agents" who happen to be online at any given time, they could
go in specific missions to investigate, eavesdrop, gather
evidence, etc., in situations or contexts which require such.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think I would want to live in such a world.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- The more power and influence a person or group has, the
more lives her/its everyday decisions touches... the more
intense the scrutiny that may fall upon her/it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
So if I work hard and succeed in some field and employ many others
then I should be scrutinized more on some suspicion of guilt? Who
else should be scrutinized?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>- Those people, groups, organizations, agencies,
governments trying to create (illegal, hopefully according to
international law, whatever that means at the time) pockets of
privacy, could be easily spotted, and something done about it.
A "transparent society", fairly established (after much
discussion of what this means, and some sensible agreements
reached), would be, by definition almost, much more humane,
its peoples' much more accountable to each other, to humanity
at large.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Pockets of privacy may well be the only hope that unpopular
minorities, not just those actually initiating force, have.
Humanity at large is NOT OUR FRIEND. Careful what you wish for.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>- With such systems properly in place, it should be easier
for us to stop some highly visible and potentially deadly acts
of terror before the perpetrators of such acts have the time
to cause mass death and destruction. With the advent of cheap
DIY bio and eventually nanoengineering, it becomes important,
for public health reasons, to start being a lot more vigilant.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again, terrorism is not the main threat by many orders of magnitude.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Some major problems that I see achieving this vision:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Those in positions of power (or high power) may likely,
at least initially and probably for some time, oppose it (some
fiercely).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not just them. Everyone who some level of privacy or anonymity
offers some additional place for freedom. Everyone who has any
information they want to control regarding who sees it under what
circumstances. This includes almost all businesses as we know them
today. Everyone that practices what their neighbors or employers
will think is too kinky a style of sex or frequents dives they would
rather their employer or some of their friends not know about. I
leave the rest to your imagination. It is not at all true that "if
you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div> Given the fact that, today, they have the "upper hand", it
may be hard to reverse this. They might fight, kick and scream
so that this is not done... so, without strong social support
for such systems, and quite a bit of activism, they may never
come to pass. This view is hard to accept even by the average
citizen right now, still living in 20th century technological
and scientific realitites (in their minds), and with 20th
century threats in their minds.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are good reasons even the relatively powerless should think
twice about advocating or going along with any such thing. Of
course, as I say, the tech is coming anyway. So what is really
needed is sound limitation of how such information may be used and
what is and is not a crime. I don't see us being very good at
either or having much of the basis for becoming good at it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Even if one nation were to decide to test or implement
such sousveillance systems, others may not. Unless
sousveillance systems are organized somewhat globally, via
adequate international organizations, it would be hard to
properly monitor activity of the worst criminals and
terrorists, who have the freedom to go elsewhere to plot their
misdeeds.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The worst criminals and terrorists work for governments, generally
speaking and specifically speaking of the number of actual deaths
and amount of damage they do.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- It would be complicated to set up such a system. If we
end up doing none of this, maybe for lack of public support
for such measures (a public which may not hear about these
possibilities in the first place), <i>maybe</i> a benign
superintelligence, if we are successful in developing such,
may eventually do the equivalent (both the top-down and the
bottom-up monitoring), but without taking so many resources,
and without taking so much time from people (the time that
countless sousveillance agents around the world may invest in
monitoring activities). </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It will almost all be automated anyway. I don't have much faith
that a great AGI will come along and take care of it for us. I
believe that one could come along, in a decade or three, that *could
do the job*. I rather doubt it would be terribly interested in such
employment though. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>However, my opinion is that it would be worthy to push for
such a social movement and to spark intense political action
encouraging lifelogging, transparency and sousveillance--if
only because the risks of "privacy" and unaccountability in
the world are starting to get out of hand. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Actually the singular lack of privacy of the individual from the
state is getting extremely out of hand. The risk of loss of even
more privacy are not small. So I don't think it is time to trump
the benefits of sousveillance just yet.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:2EBFDEF8-8CC2-4064-828E-DE05ED5737B5@mac.com"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>Such has been also looked at and analyzed in more detail by
authors such as David Brin, with his book <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Society-Technology-Between-Freedom/dp/0738201448/sr=8-1/qid=1157357368/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books">The
Transparent Society</a>, and I'm sure Gordon Bell and other
proponents of intense lifelogging.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Lifeblogging and being under the scrutiny of others 24/7 are not at
all the same thing.<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>