The US government makes a suspicious show of being angry at Apple for crypto, but does not warn against their Chinese suppliers. State surveillance is not fully privatized, because it needs to be tightly controlled, and US and China governments are not allies but competitors.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
On the surface, it's hard to disagree. But considering the following makes one paranoid: A) all critical data of global societies are in databases. B) all databases are inherently insecure and leak all the time. C) obtaining and merging databases is technically *very* easy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samim
With the WL and Snowden revelations we have passed the surveillance Singularity. (Actually a few years before that if you were paying attention.) There is no more additional reason for paranoia now, we are firmly in the age of perfect surveillance, and we better get used to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
totally agree & "the surveillance singularity" is a useful term. I'm not arguing along the lines of "oh no, it's all bad, make it go away!" > I'm questioning what global society should/can do with it's new cybernetic panopticon capabilities and who gets to part of the discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samim
I think we now have to put all our energies and hopes into strengthening pluralist rational liberalism. Governments are not going to give up these tools once they have them, but we must be worried about what motivates our governments and what constraints they operate under.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Very nicely said and agree. To put a finer point on this, consider this:pic.twitter.com/GomK4aLgR5
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @samim
I think any attempt to characterize the problems of the world as moral failings is futile. People will always act on what they consider to be their best interest under the circumstances.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Only partially agree, as it is very easy to build systems (like wallstreet) that propagate/breed greed systemically. "Morality" (e.g. culture) is an evolving animal which has been actively shaped throughout history. Isn't social engineering the hole point of surveillance?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @samim
Morality results from shared purposes, but these purposes are not objective. Ubiquitous imposition of such purposes requires a combination of totalitarian indoctrination, strategic deception and threat of physical violence that may be incompatible with a liberal society.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Incompatible, precisely! I suppose where things get interesting, is when the cost of mass-indoctrination trends towards 0 (via accessible surveillance & psycho-surgery tech) and your friendly neighbour can start to play mini catholic church inquisition...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If we don't have a consensus to build a society on truth and non coercion, we will see violent conflict of people in the thrall of different modes of systematic deception. But even if we do have such a consensus, it is hard to correctly incentivize governance.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
A twisted conundrum indeed. I'm afraid that the current trend towards a global society where all forms of trust & consensus are mediated primarily via opaque cryptographic means, might make the "pluralist rational liberalism" vision quite intangible.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.