There is no form of surveillance that does more good than harm in the long run. The endless debates about the value of "catching bad guys" or "keeping people on their best behavior" should be rightly seen as opposed to the fundamental notion that human beings are capable of cooperation and altruism at scale. No amount of mass surveillance is justifiable, and there is no version of the future in which we allow it but do not create dystopia
I disagree, I want all of my decision-making government employees monitored and logged 24/7 complete with a peeping tom AI to sort the recordings by suspiciousness and performance with accurate potentially large bonuses on large time delays.
Does this include organizations accepting public funds in any way, shape, or form? Where do inalienable rights begin and your fetish for catching people taking too long to shit end?
Not enough room here to write out the manifesto but in short: it depends on the stakes and on how secure you can monitor the data. In general we never have enough resources, if we have just a little bit more more people will live [longer] and lives may be improved. A little bit of corruption will only ruin a few lives. A good scheme will kill millions. That they get away with it is not even half the problem, you end up encouraging repetition and eventually end up normalizing it. Securing the data properly is important or people become afraid to act when they should.
If you catch them early enough you might not even persecute, if the members of the organization act suspicious enough the next contract could go to someone else or you might discontinue on the spot. When someone proposes the bribe you get a notification that your employment is under review.
People tasked with enforcement can go straight to prison when they fail to arrange your hearing or your day in court.
Earnings to match the working conditions of course and the conditions should be clear from day one.
I don't know how hard you work but assuming you enjoy accomplishing something, did you ever have a job where a substantial % of the employees are trying to cut all corners?
In my current job, for two months, two employees have been to lazy to drive 2 hours to bring tools. People working there will simply not do the work. They won't report it to higher ups because the first question will be: Why didn't you report this two months ago? I grind them every day but wont report them either as there is nothing to gain for me.
This is exactly how governments works.
I wrote a web app, I put some screenshots into an LLM and instantly know who isn't working, for how long or at what point they cant continue and how long ago they should have known. It paints a preposterous picture but it is currently only useful for job security.
Desicions are not made by government employees, they simply obey and execute, not without personal gains, of course.
You want to monitor and log someone else. Start with top oligarchs, IMF, World Bank, WEF, Blackrock, Vanguard and so on, then track further behind the curtains.
Often, there are many solutions to a problem, with different externalities and implementation requirements. Speed limit enforcement for sure has some benefits, but also some downsides. Any absolute has edge cases that don't work, but I don't in fact think creating the large networks of people empowered to surveil citizens to enforce speed limits is the only viable means of reducing traffic deaths, a goal which is often better served by creating more viable transportation alternatives to cars. I don't think carceral approaches to problems are always wrong, but they are often an attempt to individuate a problem that's better addressed on the level of infrastructure
GP probably meant mass surveillance. I don't think anyone's arguing that a cop with a radar gun watching one piece of road is harmful. It's harmful when it scales to hundreds of data points across different areas, is automated, and has almost no oversight or accountability baked into the system.
What "automated" part, I see no "automated" in the OP, but perhaps it was meant. So far we have:
1. "opposed to the fundamental notion that human beings are capable of cooperation and altruism at scale" - a complicated statement, I think it means that keeping people under control stops them from being naturally good.
2. The scale, or as another comment said, "It's harmful when it scales to hundreds of data points across different areas", but why?
3. That comment continues "is automated, and has almost no oversight or accountability baked into the system." It's not clear why anything would be better when inefficient, but here we have an appeal to common sense and some sort of appeals process.
This is rather messy. I get the impression of an argument for case-by-case human decisions.
It reminds me of the data gathering done by businesses, which doesn't even technically harm me or lead to decisions about me personally, but still pisses me off. I'm happy for a store manager to contemplatively watch me shopping while incubating business decisions, but I don't want to be distilled into statistics, it's just offensive - I suppose because it's impersonal. "How do these humans behave mechanically?" is the question implied by the data-gathering.
This has nothing to do with capitalism, as these practices antagonise paying customers and quality employees and will lose money to the company in the long run.
This has all to do with people wanting control over other people, which may me classified under authoritarism, totalitarism and the such.
> as these practices antagonise paying customers and quality employees and will lose money to the company in the long run
I've been hearing this for too many years, and so far it hasn't been true.
Maybe next year some of Amazon's customers will somehow become willing to pay more and get less convenience at other retailers, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I closed mine a while ago specifically because of the anti-union behavior. It's not acceptable and Amazon should meet its end as a corporate entity as a consequence.
To be fair, Y Combinator is partly responsible for some companies that are almost as bad as Amazon is toward their workers, so yipinwong's point kind of hits anyway.
right, this something that cant be offshored, and only legalised slavery could optimise there labour costs more, and the robots are not performing quite as well as needed, so a holding action untill they can get a legal frame work to start fining employees for fraternisation with intent.
not to worry, it's in the works.
Did workforce analytics at a big logistics outfit and this stuff is usually sold internally as "attrition risk" or "engagement heatmaps", never as union anything. Same features though, shift churn, grievance counts, break room badge patterns.
Government surveillance is much worse than corporate surveillance but European countries are only interested in restricting the latter, and only when it doesn't get involved with preventing the former.
My brother in china once told me "In china, every company of a certain size has board seats filled by a representative of the party, to make sure corporate and government priorities align. In america, every company of a certain size sends lobbyists and sometimes runs candidates directly, to make sure corporate and government priorities align"
Concentration of power has many instances of convergent evolution, but societies trending dystopian is heavily correlated with concentration of power regardless of the shape it takes
You can click each box in the matrix and see the source for the acts in question from each country. What kind of quantitative measure are you expecting?
If you catch them early enough you might not even persecute, if the members of the organization act suspicious enough the next contract could go to someone else or you might discontinue on the spot. When someone proposes the bribe you get a notification that your employment is under review.
People tasked with enforcement can go straight to prison when they fail to arrange your hearing or your day in court.
Earnings to match the working conditions of course and the conditions should be clear from day one.
I don't know how hard you work but assuming you enjoy accomplishing something, did you ever have a job where a substantial % of the employees are trying to cut all corners?
In my current job, for two months, two employees have been to lazy to drive 2 hours to bring tools. People working there will simply not do the work. They won't report it to higher ups because the first question will be: Why didn't you report this two months ago? I grind them every day but wont report them either as there is nothing to gain for me.
This is exactly how governments works.
I wrote a web app, I put some screenshots into an LLM and instantly know who isn't working, for how long or at what point they cant continue and how long ago they should have known. It paints a preposterous picture but it is currently only useful for job security.
You want to monitor and log someone else. Start with top oligarchs, IMF, World Bank, WEF, Blackrock, Vanguard and so on, then track further behind the curtains.
...how far do you take this maxim? Should we have any police on the street to enforce speed limits, since they're surveilling the speed of drivers?
1. "opposed to the fundamental notion that human beings are capable of cooperation and altruism at scale" - a complicated statement, I think it means that keeping people under control stops them from being naturally good.
2. The scale, or as another comment said, "It's harmful when it scales to hundreds of data points across different areas", but why?
3. That comment continues "is automated, and has almost no oversight or accountability baked into the system." It's not clear why anything would be better when inefficient, but here we have an appeal to common sense and some sort of appeals process.
This is rather messy. I get the impression of an argument for case-by-case human decisions.
It reminds me of the data gathering done by businesses, which doesn't even technically harm me or lead to decisions about me personally, but still pisses me off. I'm happy for a store manager to contemplatively watch me shopping while incubating business decisions, but I don't want to be distilled into statistics, it's just offensive - I suppose because it's impersonal. "How do these humans behave mechanically?" is the question implied by the data-gathering.
It's scary to think that any answer but "Strongly Agree" will very likely flag you as a risk.
Is this really the society we want?
Capitalism as a practice or an idea needs to be destroyed.
https://karmak.org/archive/2003/12/manna/manna1.htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/NCSU/comments/1h0olsv/popular_nc_st...
https://www.reddit.com/user/MarshallBrain
This has all to do with people wanting control over other people, which may me classified under authoritarism, totalitarism and the such.
I've been hearing this for too many years, and so far it hasn't been true.
Maybe next year some of Amazon's customers will somehow become willing to pay more and get less convenience at other retailers, but I wouldn't bet on it.
They said, no to american food, stomping on KFC. Recording using iPhone.
Same thing here, I closed my Amazon account, sharing it on HN run on AWS
They said, no to american food, stomping on KFC. Recording with iPhones.
Same thing here, Closing an Amazon account, sharing it on HN running on AWS.
One example would be me complaining about capitalism and its natural end state while you can, rightly, say “yet you keep buying things”.
I don't need to know stupid thousands of memes to participate.
it should be a protected freedom to associate and expression
why is it allowed to be gameified where if corporations can detect it early they can stop it?
hands-off people's lives, unions aren't illegal so no interference
The thing is, proof to catch the offender, which will be hard in mega corps?
AmazonUK now requires ID and a selfie for "bladed items": https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/amazon-uk-now-requires-p...
The UK is ranked as one of the least free countries for digital freedom: https://eylenburg.github.io/countries.htm. Worse than India, Brazil, and Vietnam.
I think in practice you'll find they go hand in hand together.
Concentration of power has many instances of convergent evolution, but societies trending dystopian is heavily correlated with concentration of power regardless of the shape it takes
What are their sources for their statistics? "Source: eylenburg.github.io"
Ah.