Slashdot Mirror
The Upsides of a Surveillance Society
theodp writes Citing the comeuppance of ESPN reporter Britt McHenry, who was suspended from her job after her filmed ad-hominem attack on a person McHenry deemed to be beneath her in terms of appearance, education, wealth, class, status went viral, The Atlantic's Megan Garber writes that one silver lining of the omnipresence of cameras it that the possibility of exposure can also encourage us to be a little kinder to each other. "Terrible behavior," Garber writes, "whether cruel or violent or something in between, has a greater possibility than it ever has before of being exposed. Just as Uber tracks ratings for both its drivers and its users, and just as Yelp can be a source of shaming for businesses and customers alike, technology at large has afforded a reciprocity between people who, in a previous era, would have occupied different places on the spectrum of power. Which can, again, be a bad thing — but which can also, in McHenry's case, be an extremely beneficial one. It's good that her behavior has been exposed. It's good that her story going viral might discourage similar behavior from other people. It's good that she has publicly promised 'to learn from this mistake.'"
while it can be used to make people "kinder" it can also be used for abuse. just look at all the companies that are being tricked into making statements, and being bombarded by the social mobs over it.
Its not making people be nicer, its helping lonely people harass others
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yes, people shouldn't be raging assholes but in what way is shaming the occasional raging asshole justification for a surveillance society?
This like... pros and cons of an alien invasion from outer space.
On the down side we're all going to be slaves.
But on the plus side we have ray guns now. We don't control the ray guns... they're mostly pointed at us and our overlords exploit their advantages ruthlessly... but hey... ray guns.
I mean seriously, do we control these cameras at all? No. They're not controlled by the public. The public in fact didn't even want them. They were IMPOSED and they serve the whims of whomever is in charge of the security system.
So we're told "hey good news guys, the upside of the alien invasion is that your alien overlords will occasionally disintegrate the occasionally asshole of your pathetic squishy species. ALL HAIL YOUR TENTACLE MASTERS!"
What the actual fuck.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Maybe it's not kindness if you need cameras. Not mentioning all the downsides...
While this sometimes pays off, when circumstances line up correctly, it is vital to keep the limitations in mind:
Lower cost has made it much more likely that random bystanders have some level of video recording, rather than none; but entities with ample resources also take advantage of reduced costs, which is why, say, nontrivial areas of the developed world are effectively saturated with automated LPR systems. There is a win for those cases where it previously would have been the word of someone who counts vs. the word of some nobody; but elsewhere reduced costs and improve capabilities make having a big budget and legal power even more useful.
Improved surveillance only changes the game at the 'evidence' stage. If legal, public, or both, standards aren't sufficiently in your favor, improved evidence is anywhere from irrelevant to actively harmful. You can have all the evidence you want; but if the DA refuses to indict, or the 'viral' pile-on targets the victim rather than the aggressor, it doesn't help you much. Had McHenry's tirade been a bit cleverer, or her target a shade more unsympathetic, odds are good that the attendant in question would be being hounded as we speak.
I was beaten in 2011 by 2 teenagers, and videotaped(?!) by a 3rd. When I initially filed the police report, it was a simple assault. When the police department found the video, it became a felony.
tl;dr: Stupidity knows now bounds.
--sf
The human race has been modifying their behaviour* in the face of perceived pervasive surveillance for millenia. I think they used to call it "God."
(* I was going to say "been acting nicer than they otherwise would," but, eh, doesn't always work out that way)
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's great that you can walk in to a private business that has forced you to do business with it (car-towing company), lose your temper in this essentially private setting because they are (in all probability) treating you like shit and/or ripping you off, and have that business post a video of this on the internet without your consent, having edited out the parts of the video where they said/did things that incited you in the first place.
That reporter clearly just lost her temper and was trying to say whatever seemed like it would be most hurtful. It's not clear at all that she is any more elitist than most people in positions of prestige. For all we know, her sentiment could have been justified, and given the apparently predatory towing company she was dealing with, it probably was. If the employee was "just doing her job", but that job involves ripping people off, I have no sympathy. Pretty crazy how people are calling for the reporter's head for this.
All I see is the rise of Mob rule and lack of mutual respect and tolerance.
Force is the least effective means of promoting "good" behavior and Mob rule is an ineffective means of governance.
I am increasingly worried about the role Media whoring for attention and profit is having on society.
In 1984, people also weren't always under observation by their telescreen. Actually, they almost never were. What made them "behave" was simply that they didn'T know when they would be.
So just not having a camera "trained on you" every second of your life doesn't make the total surveillance any less invasive. When you cannot tell whether you have privacy, you have none.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They were under constant watch of the Stasi
Why don't you guys go ask the former residents of the East Germany and see if they prefer to be "kinder to each others" when under surveillance or to have their liberty back ... even if they have to endure the consequence of having more people being rude to each others
TFA should be a warning sign - that TPTB is actively trying to inject a meme / an idea into people's mindset that the society would be somehow *nicer* if everybody are under surveillance
I thought you guys are supposed to have above average IQ, but looking at the way you guys are commenting ... sigh !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
For all the complaints leveled at the NSA there has been no proof that they have ever used that information against it's own citizens.
Hard to say when you can't cross examine the records. If the government doesn't open the books, we have to assume the worst. We have to maintain the Sword of Damocles over their heads.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I've once had the fortune (misfortune?) of living in East Germany for a year, back when the Berlin Wall existed. Do you want to know what living surveillance state is like? It's a place where you are ALWAYS on guard. You can never be honest with anyone - your teacher in school could be with the government, your best friend could be undercover, even your own family could be recruited. You have to bottle up everything inside yourself, and you present this lovely facade to the public. Many, especially those of us from the west, often wonder why people from Russia are so guarded. You want to know why? Because the alternative is rotting in jail, or even being assassinated. What this idiotic, moronic , IGNORANT author proposes is a complete regression of 300 years of progress towards a free society, and not just in America. If he can't stand people being impolite, then very well - I expect him to thank me when he is inside a gulag for going to a gay rights meeting, just as he had to thank me when I hauled off his grandmother for being related to him (she's equally guilty by being in his immediate family). THAT is the society he will live in, but at least he'll never half to bear the terrible injustice of someone calling him an idiot. And now I think I know why he's called that.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Actually, in typical totalitarian societies, drug dealers usually make arrangements with the "authorities". The thing is that totalitarian societies care not one bit about the welfare of their citizens, they only keep up appearances. What then happens in addition is that everybody on drugs is known to the authorities and if any of them ever voices a critical thought, they will be publicly crucified. All that are behave like the sheep they are supposed to be are left alone.
So, no, expecting that crime against citizens is less in authoritarian societies is not realistic. The one exception are some theocracies and quasi-theocracies where they are true believers and even see thinking anything else than the church/party line is a capital offense. There you actually may get less crime. The cost is extreme, though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.