The application of technology by security forces is nothing unusual.
Farmers use rifles to shoot predators. SWAT teams are armed with rifles. Compute and data management is used by government to make social welfare payments and its used by security forces to manage criminal records.
Historically security forces have adopted technology as equally anti-social elements have utilised that same technology. The application of AI in any field is simply a measure of social change as the technology available changes.
Society is readily adopting AI consciously, but involuntarily. Passive dissent becomes consent.
Ultimately it is the pervasive morality of society that conditions the consequence of technology implementation. Surveillance by a state that is authoritarian and repressive is a different problem from when it is implemented by a state that is a liberal democracy.
You get the state and the society that you are willing to accept up until you no longer have that choice.
Absolutely, but there is a grey zone between 'liberal democracy' and 'authoritarian and repressive'. What we're seeing across the west (led by the US) is democratic backsliding. Is it excessive to call Australia authoritarian? At present, of course, we've seen the judiciary hold up as a check on executive - albeit a tenuous check.
But that's not to diminish the intention of government/elites to exert more state control and quash dissent before it becomes problematic to their rule.
The technological advancements are occurring in lockstep with legislative changes that enable sweeping surveillance and the proscribing of local groups as 'hate'. We can't look at AI in isolation, but for its intended purpose. It dramatically accelerates an already-troubling surveillance regime. This is, in my view, inherently undemocratic in what is ought to be a liberal democracy. And there are few legal human rights safeguards for people to be wholly dependent on the courts.
I subscribe because I support your journalism and willingness to present a view that challenges the lazy consensus of the main stream. Democracy is a continuous equation.
Surveillance has been increasing ever since cookie technology was deployed in the WWW. "In January 1999, Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy famously stated during a press event, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it," dismissing consumer privacy concerns as a "red herring"
Of course we shouldn't get over it, but participation in public, rather than clandestine activity makes it a reality. We should be aware of it as constant and act accordingly.
Indeed, and we hope to provide continued awareness. ☺️ Thanks for your support. The aim isn't just to do journalism where others are not, but this ... creating a space for smart discussions away from the noise pollution. A hub of intellectualism and critical thinking - which is sorely lacking in our public discourse.
Nope. Don’t want it.
The application of technology by security forces is nothing unusual.
Farmers use rifles to shoot predators. SWAT teams are armed with rifles. Compute and data management is used by government to make social welfare payments and its used by security forces to manage criminal records.
Historically security forces have adopted technology as equally anti-social elements have utilised that same technology. The application of AI in any field is simply a measure of social change as the technology available changes.
Society is readily adopting AI consciously, but involuntarily. Passive dissent becomes consent.
Ultimately it is the pervasive morality of society that conditions the consequence of technology implementation. Surveillance by a state that is authoritarian and repressive is a different problem from when it is implemented by a state that is a liberal democracy.
You get the state and the society that you are willing to accept up until you no longer have that choice.
Absolutely, but there is a grey zone between 'liberal democracy' and 'authoritarian and repressive'. What we're seeing across the west (led by the US) is democratic backsliding. Is it excessive to call Australia authoritarian? At present, of course, we've seen the judiciary hold up as a check on executive - albeit a tenuous check.
But that's not to diminish the intention of government/elites to exert more state control and quash dissent before it becomes problematic to their rule.
The technological advancements are occurring in lockstep with legislative changes that enable sweeping surveillance and the proscribing of local groups as 'hate'. We can't look at AI in isolation, but for its intended purpose. It dramatically accelerates an already-troubling surveillance regime. This is, in my view, inherently undemocratic in what is ought to be a liberal democracy. And there are few legal human rights safeguards for people to be wholly dependent on the courts.
I subscribe because I support your journalism and willingness to present a view that challenges the lazy consensus of the main stream. Democracy is a continuous equation.
Surveillance has been increasing ever since cookie technology was deployed in the WWW. "In January 1999, Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy famously stated during a press event, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it," dismissing consumer privacy concerns as a "red herring"
Of course we shouldn't get over it, but participation in public, rather than clandestine activity makes it a reality. We should be aware of it as constant and act accordingly.
Indeed, and we hope to provide continued awareness. ☺️ Thanks for your support. The aim isn't just to do journalism where others are not, but this ... creating a space for smart discussions away from the noise pollution. A hub of intellectualism and critical thinking - which is sorely lacking in our public discourse.
I do not want to take up any more of your time, however as you raise the idea of a hub - which invokes the network effect - the aggregation of a "public" - this is a post on that: "https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/were-getting-the-social-media-crisis" by someone I follow.
i am optimistic that progressives will work out how to do it in time.
Thank you and please do take up time! Want more of these exchanges.