Do you support or oppose a digitized society?

[Rumata]

I mean social life hinted in this video
(please, ignore the last episode where an Uygur woman talks about Chinese camps for Uygurs):

[Arūnas]

bump

[Asten]

We should find an equilibrium between security and liberty, in this video liberty is limited for the profit of security. Switzerland is a good example who reached both, me think.

[Aldaris]

Those codes must be very elaborate to recognize the Chinese apart with that accuracy. :-) No I don't. But I don't see some dystopian scenario coming from that either, at least not in a foreseeable future. Keep in mind that the goverments don't even have enough resources to keep track of the most wanted criminals. Even with such technologies, nobody is going to analyze some average Joe from a random street camera unless they have a really good reason to. Since otherwise, literally half the world would have to be employed as operators of this gargantuan scheme going nowhere. For better or worse, nobody gives a rat's ass about you or me unless we give them a reason to. Modern world is all about profit and the scenario when some company/goverment is monitoring your and any other guys' every step and keeping track of it personally is a good way to get broke in like a week or two. My friend was one of the developers of one of such pattern recognition algorithms, but it was meant to be sold to supermarkets so they make the arrangement of the store more profitable, nothing more. Yeah, it is kind of a shitty mind trick, but nowhere near some of that NWO stuff.

[Rædwald]

Strongly opposed.

[Rumata]

...Even with such technologies, nobody is going to analyze some average Joe from a random street camera unless they have a really good reason to. Since otherwise, literally half the world would have to be employed as operators of this gargantuan scheme going nowhere. For better or worse, nobody gives a rat's ass about you or me unless we give them a reason to...

And as we now know that "good reason" could be for example a refusal to take part in a medical experiment aka "covid vaccination". Or a walk with an open face. Etc. Whatever suits them tomorrow.

And they don't need human employees watching the filmed material all the time. Software would do the lion's share of work and humans would be needed for final decisions.

[JamesBond007]

And as we now know that "good reason" could be for example a refusal to take part in a medical experiment aka "covid vaccination". Or a walk with an open face. Etc. Whatever suits them tomorrow.

And they don't need human employees watching the filmed material all the time. Software would do the lion's share of work and humans would be needed for final decisions.

Aldaris has no idea what he is talking about.

[JamesBond007]

Opposed :

The Eternal Value of Privacy
Bruce Schneier

The most common retort against privacy advocates — by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures — is this line: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”

Some clever answers: “If I’m not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what’s wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these — as right as they are — is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It’s not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? (“Who watches the watchers?”) and “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.” Watch someone long enough, and you’ll find something to arrest — or just blackmail — with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies — whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It’s intrinsic to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that — either now or in the uncertain future — patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And it’s our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

Too many wrongly characterize the debate as “security versus privacy.” The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that’s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

https://www.schneier.com/essays/arch..._value_of.html

[Aldaris]

And as we now know that "good reason" could be for example a refusal to take part in a medical experiment aka "covid vaccination". Or a walk with an open face. Etc. Whatever suits them tomorrow.

I work for two state institutions. And also refused to take part in that. Yet nobody brought the coronavirus vaccination to my table. Same goes for my colleagues. Pal, 'they' are scattered in political circles, business owners, military, you name it. They are decentralized as it can be and the only connection they have with each other is competition and blackmailing. There's no unity at any level. One hand doesn't know what the other one does at worst.

And they don't need human employees watching the filmed material all the time. Software would do the lion's share of work and humans would be needed for final decisions.

I meant it that way and the point is still the same. Of course they wouldn't be humans to do that, but in order for humans to even judge every suspicious behavior of every other human the software will react to is unrealistic - given our population, it will be too many of those instances and most would be a false alert - which leads to, guess what, loss of profit. The scenario hinted in the video would probably lead to some false accusations. But it may also prevent them. Cops are not your friends, to them you are guilty until proven innocent. This can potentially shut them up early in some of the cases. All that said, I do indeed value privacy, so I don't agree with that stuff. Stated it clearly in my first response. We're ultimately on the same ship pal, but you take it too far.

Aldaris has no idea what he is talking about.

Don't you have a Riemann hypothesis to prove?

[Red Pill]

Personally I'm fed-up with all this "digitization". Soon we'll even have digitized toilet paper and if you want to wipe your b-ass you'll need to type a password or download an app. F**k high-tech corporations.