Are you comfortable with 24/7 Government Surveillance? (1 Viewer)

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

bump

 

[LizzyGrant]

Yes

 

[loversinjapan]

No.

As Greenwald acknowledges,

"there seems to be a surprising lack of concern about the ability of the government to examine our behaviour and activities: Of course, dutiful, loyal supporters of the president and his policies, good citizens who do nothing to attract negative attention from the powerful, have no reason to fear the surveillance state."

This is the case in every society: those who pose no challenge are rarely targeted by oppressive measures, and from their perspective, they can then convince themselves that oppression does not really exist. But it’s not hard to see a continuum between the surveillance of your text messages and emails, and policies like the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program (which inordinately targets young African-American men), or policies of preventive detention (but only for persons with Arab-sounding names), or other forms of racial, social, and cultural profiling.

They are all part of the same approach: if you’re planning something nefarious, this way we get you before you can cause any harm. If you’re not planning something nefarious, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Wouldn’t you prefer to be a little inconvenienced, have your rights a little bit restricted, if it means catching someone before he or she perpetrates another 9/11? As much as we can reassure ourselves that we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good of a safer society, though, that’s easier to do when it’s not your home being targeted for search at 3 am in the morning, and it’s not your daughter being held without charge for days at a time, and not your child on the wrong end of a drone strike – the inevitable end result of all this surveillance.

Indeed, there are considerable portions of the Australian population (the Indigenous Australian population comes to mind) who are very aware of what it means to be under constant state-sanctioned surveillance. And even if empathy doesn’t convince you, imagine if we all found ourselves under the control of a leader who didn’t approve of our religion (or lack thereof), our educational status, our sexual orientation, our gender identity, our political leanings. How comfortable would we feel if Orwell’s Thought Police really existed?

http://inside.org.au/just-because-y...an-they-arent-after-you/#sthash.WaSd08zd.dpuf

 

[faisalabdul16]

It seems quite even in regards to those supporting and opposing this idea

 

[Speed6]

Freedom isn't seen within spying.

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

It seems quite even in regards to those supporting and opposing this idea

I think this too

Freedom isn't seen within spying.

but are you willing to sacrifice some of that freedom for your safety? theoretically; say you're in a high tower and a plane was about to hit it in the name of terrorism. What's going to save you; a counter drone or your freedom?

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

bump

 

[D94]

as for the 150,000 people pirating a TV show is not something I mean by "national security". A business losing some money (apparently, about $350 bill is being lost to piracy each year) is not nearly as important as the lives of many

we should be able to draw the line somewhere but where? is this the problem people are having?

would you like something in said system that filters explicit material from forums like these?

The pirating was an example, not the be all and end all crime of crimes. Is this agency going to allow crimes that aren't considered national security to continue without referring them to another agency? If they will refer them, then most certainly there will be people in the courts. It could be from online bullying to drug syndicates to international fraud. This is not the problem people are having. It's a direct invasion of privacy. You cannot quantify what that means, and you cannot just juxtapose that with the potential to save lives. That's ridiculous. People would be more paranoid than now, and that is poor social policy, which will affect economic policy. You are suggesting a system that will cost billions of dollars, just to make people feel not at ease, for the potential to stop a terrorist attack, which could still happen.

I am saying this system can have the ability to "think like god" and make decisions, and decide whether it is worth pursuing in an objective, unbiased manner. It maybe would also indirectly deter crime?

And what will happen when it releases a drone and bombs a hospital? Who do you blame? What if it was your family in that hospital? It's extremely naive to think humans could create a god like system as you have described. Don't tell me the system is 100% perfect - that's just crap. A 2% margin of error is enough to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. A six sigma margin of error is enough to wipe out 78 innocent people in Australia. That is murder - the system, by design, will kill with intent.

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

The pirating was an example, not the be all and end all crime of crimes. Is this agency going to allow crimes that aren't considered national security to continue without referring them to another agency? If they will refer them, then most certainly there will be people in the courts. It could be from online bullying to drug syndicates to international fraud. This is not the problem people are having. It's a direct invasion of privacy. You cannot quantify what that means, and you cannot just juxtapose that with the potential to save lives. That's ridiculous. People would be more paranoid than now, and that is poor social policy, which will affect economic policy. You are suggesting a system that will cost billions of dollars, just to make people feel not at ease, for the potential to stop a terrorist attack, which could still happen.

As I said before; terrorist attacks take a lot of planning. No-one (hopefully) says "hmm, today I am going to take the opera house down" but even something "half-decent" would be able to detect things like "bought chemical weapons" (said system was able to trace a wire transfer and had video surveillance of the exchange) and is driving to a well known land mark (because said system picked up something from a traffic camera). This would have a better chance of preventing disaster because it would be able to put together things quicker than humans because it has access to all the information it needs.

As for the other "non-national security crimes" would you like to see something that is able to pass some information on to other agencies were they are able to act? for example and ex-boyfriend is jealous his partner is cheating (the system was able to analyse text messages between the girlfriend and another 3rd party) and he was "seen" buying some poison or whatever from bunnings (receipt + video camera) and was following his ex-girlfriend home from work (GPS on his phone). would you like this information to be passed onto NSW Police where they're able to do something about it?

this may deter crime as well - teach people not to pirate - but then again; pirating isn't hurting anyone physically (significantly financially) but people can still survive and live without a few extra million dollars

And what will happen when it releases a drone and bombs a hospital? Who do you blame? What if it was your family in that hospital? It's extremely naive to think humans could create a god like system as you have described. Don't tell me the system is 100% perfect - that's just crap. A 2% margin of error is enough to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. A six sigma margin of error is enough to wipe out 78 innocent people in Australia. That is murder - the system, by design, will kill with intent.

how about this. UNSW finest graduates, you and me and some other people set venture to create such a thing.

- we have an objective moral compass
- the government found some money from somewhere (which will not effect the economy)
- we are all gifted programmers/engineers/business people
- and we spent a lot of time on this and made it LITERALLY 100% perfect by staying up late at night and drinking coffee - just say we could do it
- we do not program drones to attack without warrant; there will be some sort of oversight before any action is taken

is there a problem with such a system model now?

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

have reped all those who have contributed to this thread

 

[SylviaB]

if you've got nothing to hide

















you're probably a boring loser

 

[SylviaB]

all muslims should be under surveillance

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

if you've got nothing to hide

you're probably a boring loser

:/

all muslims should be under surveillance

it's more that everyone is under surveillance

 

[anomalousdecay]

No.



http://inside.org.au/just-because-y...an-they-arent-after-you/#sthash.WaSd08zd.dpuf

The day I leave BoS is the day I become a ghost again.

And what will happen when it releases a drone and bombs a hospital? Who do you blame? What if it was your family in that hospital? It's extremely naive to think humans could create a god like system as you have described. Don't tell me the system is 100% perfect - that's just crap. A 2% margin of error is enough to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people. A six sigma margin of error is enough to wipe out 78 innocent people in Australia. That is murder - the system, by design, will kill with intent.

I forgot the name of the film but there is a film where this happens with Nicholas Cage in it I think.

how about this. UNSW finest graduates, you and me and some other people set venture to create such a thing.

- we have an objective moral compass
- the government found some money from somewhere (which will not effect the economy)
- we are all gifted programmers/engineers/business people
- and we spent a lot of time on this and made it LITERALLY 100% perfect by staying up late at night and drinking coffee - just say we could do it
- we do not program drones to attack without warrant; there will be some sort of oversight before any action is taken

is there a problem with such a system model now?

You can't make such a system 100% perfect no matter how hard you try or where you are.

Haven't seen BladeRunner lol and what happens when you play with such matters?

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

You can't make such a system 100% perfect no matter how hard you try or where you are.

Haven't seen BladeRunner lol and what happens when you play with such matters?

that was corrupted an abused. this will be 100% "safe" soz for bad inglish, I am half asleep now

 

[anomalousdecay]

that was corrupted an abused. this will be 100% "safe" soz for bad inglish, I am half asleep now

The fault in the system will not only be the machinery but also the human itself.

The system will not be at fault, it will do as it pleases. However the system would not necessarily be for the greater good as it definitely will not be programmed for the best no matter what.

Would not want such a surveillance system ever even with the guarantee of its 100% reliability which is never ever true.

Go to sleep fool.

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

The fault in the system will not only be the machinery but also the human itself.

The system will not be at fault, it will do as it pleases. However the system would not necessarily be for the greater good as it definitely will not be programmed for the best no matter what.

lets say it was; me and you programed it and it listens to everything we say (assuming we don't and will not abuse such a power?)

Would not want such a surveillance system ever even with the guarantee of its 100% reliability which is never ever true.

but what if was 100% reliable all time every time. Would you have a problem with it then?

Go to sleep fool.

nao I probably should ayyeee

 

[Speed6]

all muslims should be under surveillance

Wherever I see you around BOS you always have a go at the muslims. Keep your mouth closed you racist idiot. I'm sick and tired of your name appearing on specific threads and mentioning Muslims, enough! Change your attitude and forget the racist insults because it's not on.

 

[anomalousdecay]

lets say it was; me and you programed it and it listens to everything we say (assuming we don't and will not abuse such a power?)

Nup I shall not be involved in such a project.

I would use all my knowledge there to program a car instead that drives itself around a race track and will race against other automated cars.

Then all that work can be used for much useful and less expensive equipment, like the project rescue robot thingy or something of similar sorts.

but what if was 100% reliable all time every time. Would you have a problem with it then?

But you aren't listening that it can't be 100% reliable in the place.

Even if it was I would still have a problem with it because I'd be stripped off many priviledges.

There was this one time where a stupid sticker was placed next to a lever on a train and said that "you need to apply 60 kg of force to properly apply this emergency brake" and I crossed out 60 kg and wrote down 588 N. As soon as I walked off I instantly realised my mistake and should have gone back and written down "294 Nm of torque" instead as the lever was about half a metre long.

Would you wish for me to be in jail now when I was clearly educating the system? I think not.

nao I probably should ayyeee

Nao.

 

[SquareHeartsAdrita]

Nup I shall not be involved in such a project.

I would use all my knowledge there to program a car instead that drives itself around a race track and will race against other automated cars.

Then all that work can be used for much useful and less expensive equipment, like the project rescue robot thingy or something of similar sorts.

But you aren't listening that it can't be 100% reliable in the place.

Even if it was I would still have a problem with it because I'd be stripped off many priviledges.

There was this one time where a stupid sticker was placed next to a lever on a train and said that "you need to apply 60 kg of force to properly apply this emergency brake" and I crossed out 60 kg and wrote down 588 N. As soon as I walked off I instantly realised my mistake and should have gone back and written down "294 Nm of torque" instead as the lever was about half a metre long.

Would you wish for me to be in jail now when I was clearly educating the system? I think not.

Nao.

nao; you're not listening. I am ONLY talking in hypothetical terms. Of course we can't build something that is 100% always going to work and I was talking about an ideal world, but I am saying if this was a perfect world (which it isn't); then would you be comfortable with such a system?