As long as you can surveil one person, you can surveil seven billion people. Computers automate processes. As processes digitize, they become automated. The NSA digitized their surveillance process, and automated it. At that point, they could surveil one person via software, so why not scale it?
Should we accept mass surveillance, like nuclear weapons, as inevitable? If so, it should follow that we should adopt a "mutually assured destruction" inspired doctrine, whereby multiple countries agree on the limits of surveillance. Perhaps the world would be more comfortable if constantly surveiled, but wholly informed. Who has my data? What have they done with it? Can I see it?
Or maybe, everybody should be able to surveil everybody. True openness, and therefore predictable accountability.
> Should we accept mass surveillance, like nuclear weapons, as inevitable? If so, it should follow that we should adopt a "mutually assured destruction" inspired doctrine, whereby multiple countries agree on the limits of surveillance.
it may be, but the MAD analogy doesn't hold up because nuclear weapons have immediate and distinct effects. surveillance is hard to witness and hard to measure. MAD also uses the threat of nuclear use to keep other parties in check, while surveillance uses, what, the guarantee of use? it doesnt match up.
> Perhaps the world would be more comfortable if constantly surveiled, but wholly informed. Who has my data? What have they done with it? Can I see it?
i don't see that as particularly feasible
> Or maybe, everybody should be able to surveil everybody. True openness, and therefore predictable accountability.
perhaps we may move toward enlightenment about one another's secrets someday, but i'm personally skeptical of that path as a solution to surveillance.
secrets act as a stabilizing force. keeping something unpleasant can keep people in harmony. if the shock of reveal is great enough, it can break down relationships and the institutions they form, and i wouldn't want to risk doing that en masse. uncovering the unpleasant truths make us stronger, but we have to recognize that it's a process, and not all wounds should be opened at once.
but that's not wholly relevant anyway, because there wouldnt be a perfect symmetrical reveal of information. it would be a gradual and asymmetric reveal, which means that the holders of the information could use it to their advantage. you'd end up with a class of people who hold the secrets that could manipulate the other classes. it's not a pretty idea for believers in equitable society.
Should we accept mass surveillance, like nuclear weapons, as inevitable? If so, it should follow that we should adopt a "mutually assured destruction" inspired doctrine, whereby multiple countries agree on the limits of surveillance. Perhaps the world would be more comfortable if constantly surveiled, but wholly informed. Who has my data? What have they done with it? Can I see it?
Or maybe, everybody should be able to surveil everybody. True openness, and therefore predictable accountability.