Philosophy Now Forum

A world where everything that a person see, is being recorded in video all the time, and everybody can access to videos.

(Something similar to the third chapter of Black mirror, without the possibility of deleting, and with everybody being able to see other people videos, for eample).

Would you like it? Why? I've never met any person who would like it, I would like it.

Please, stay on topic if you answer, I mean, just imagine that, don't start asking about the implementation, about "who control de camera" etc, everything a person see, is there for everybody. Would you like it? Why?

I've asked that a lot (like the other thread I posted, the one about the killer) because it gves me a lot ot what I see as important info about the person.

It's evident that some things, like stealing (at least the way we understand a common thief act today) would be impossible. If you hit, kill, or whatever, another person, you would be seen by everybody, and then they can judge and reject you, teach, you, or whatever, but they have your entire life to see it, every crime would have the proof. All that kind of things, like racism, sexism, etc, would disappear, because... you can be stupid enough to magine something wrong, but having the proof you can't say so stupid things. You can easily find what you want, you can take a lesson that other person has had... the "good things" are amazing, would wars happen if you can see how is the life of the soldier you are killing?

They say that they don't want to be observed by everybody (and I say... there are lot of people arround there, do you really believe that you are going to have lot of people seeing you? Suppose that you don't want to be seen when you have sex. In a world where everybody can see that... there are millions of people having sex. Suppose that you want to make a cave in your nose with your finger. Well. in that world... and what's the matter if seeing is all they do?), some of them think that they would be in danger! (I think, well, if you are bad enough to be seen as a danger and no one prefer to have you alive... but... well, you can see the people who is going for you, you'll never be surprised, conspirations would be impossible). Etc. Many of them, nearly all of them admit that they wouldn't act feeling free to do what they want if they are being observed, they would feel controlled, they say that people wouldn't understand, they would just obey... things like that.

Well, what do you say?

Sounds absolutely spiffing--like 1984.

TSBU wrote:A world where everything that a person see, is being recorded in video all the time, and everybody can access to videos.

(Something similar to the third chapter of Black mirror, without the possibility of deleting, and with everybody being able to see other people videos, for eample).

Would you like it? Why? I've never met any person who would like it, I would like it.

Please, stay on topic if you answer, I mean, just imagine that, don't start asking about the implementation, about "who control de camera" etc, everything a person see, is there for everybody. Would you like it? Why?

I've asked that a lot (like the other thread I posted, the one about the killer) because it gves me a lot ot what I see as important info about the person.

It's evident that some things, like stealing (at least the way we understand a common thief act today) would be impossible. If you hit, kill, or whatever, another person, you would be seen by everybody, and then they can judge and reject you, teach, you, or whatever, but they have your entire life to see it, every crime would have the proof. All that kind of things, like racism, sexism, etc, would disappear, because... you can be stupid enough to magine something wrong, but having the proof you can't say so stupid things. You can easily find what you want, you can take a lesson that other person has had... the "good things" are amazing, would wars happen if you can see how is the life of the soldier you are killing?

They say that they don't want to be observed by everybody (and I say... there are lot of people arround there, do you really believe that you are going to have lot of people seeing you? Suppose that you don't want to be seen when you have sex. In a world where everybody can see that... there are millions of people having sex. Suppose that you want to make a cave in your nose with your finger. Well. in that world... and what's the matter if seeing is all they do?), some of them think that they would be in danger! (I think, well, if you are bad enough to be seen as a danger and no one prefer to have you alive... but... well, you can see the people who is going for you, you'll never be surprised, conspirations would be impossible). Etc. Many of them, nearly all of them admit that they wouldn't act feeling free to do what they want if they are being observed, they would feel controlled, they say that people wouldn't understand, they would just obey... things like that.

Well, what do you say?

I understand what you mean but have to ask why what TSBU means to see if you get what you're saying.

I'm also wondering if we accepted cameras to be non-private, this would be like having a webcam always on and available to everyone. It might diminish the 'shock' of how we are through time, and this may be good. But it would likely be exploited by at least some people in a bad way. And it does NOT take many of these to cause sufficient concern.

Do you have a "Big Brother" show in your country that you watch? These have value to teach but is presented in a way that those involved KNOW they are being watched and are also 'protected' in a costly environment from the potential hazards of others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVV_HsHcX0

-Imp

2+2=5

Sounds like a theosophy topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Sounds absolutely spiffing--like 1984.

With a big difference, in this world you can see everybody, including those who are seeing you. 1984 only a few people had the videos. Do you think the world would be like 1984 if everybody can see those who are controlling their lives? I mean, do you think people would vote politicians after seeing them in their private lifes? Do you think that many people would use drugs or see porn like they see it now? That they'd buy a religion or that kind of lies when they see the one who is selling it in his private life?

Scott Mayers wrote: I understand what you mean but have to ask why what TSBU means to see if you get what you're saying.

Talk should be useful. Going deep to why did I pick that name is useless I think.

Scott Mayers wrote: It might diminish the 'shock' of how we are through time, and this may be good. But it would likely be exploited by at least some people in a bad way. And it does NOT take many of these to cause sufficient concern.

Sufficient for what? There will always be idiots, but now they would be clear idiots, and no just ignorants, and obviusluy, there would be less ifgnorance. How can this be exploted in a bad way? You can learn from other people and don't pay. But... everybody will see that you are not paying. (Or if you like the other point of view, everybody can be that you are paying, or whatever you don't like, they can see it and they can judge) You can say that someone may lie to everybody.. but in this world a lie would be different. Now, you can make a lie, earn a lot of money, anf spend it in... I don't know, whores, get drunk, a big house. Now, in the other world... try to do that. Do you seriously believe that's possible? if you lie you have to be liying ALL the time. You can see better how to kill a person... but everybody will see how you do that. You can lie to some people, they can believe you... but everybody can judge. If you are a real bad person... well, please, explain me how do you think this allow to do evil things.

Scott Mayers wrote:Do you have a "Big Brother" show in your country that you watch? These have value to teach but is presented in a way that those involved KNOW they are being watched and are also 'protected' in a costly environment from the potential hazards of others.

There is/there was a big brother show. But it was a reality with retarded people, I've never see it because it may cause an ictus. I don't think that can be an example, I'm talking about real life, about everything.

Walker wrote:Sounds like a theosophy topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

No, in fact, every day we are closer to the world I'm talking about. We gain technology, and there is less privacy, nowadays, in some places, nearly everybody has a small camera in their phone, if something happens, you have it in five minutes or less in twitter, if you say "book" in your mails, you have amazon adds (But in that world there wouldn't be that fucking anoying lies about "be rich in your house, have the love of a russian woman" etc, because you can see that it's fake today, but in that world, everybody can see that it's fake, they can even see the motherfucker who do that adds... by the way... adds would change a lot), you have your account for nearly everybody, there are some shops that have profiles for their customers and offer them what they want in real life...etc.

Impenitent wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVV_HsHcX0

-Imp

Nice flashback!

Impenitent wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVV_HsHcX0

-Imp

Gay Icon.

I prefer it when people are OUT. It's more honest.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Impenitent wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVV_HsHcX0

-Imp

Gay Icon.

I prefer it when people are OUT. It's more honest.

He looks pretty 'out' to me in that video He doesn't look very 'metallish' does he. In fact, they don't sound like heavy metal to me--more like 80's pop. 'Low-fat' metal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Impenitent wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMVV_HsHcX0

-Imp

Gay Icon.

I prefer it when people are OUT. It's more honest.

He looks pretty 'out' to me in that video He doesn't look very 'metallish' does he.

Reminds me of a darker, less active and less talented Freddie Mercury after he came out. Funny thing is that in the old days none of this was on anyone's radar. People were surprised when it became "known" that Liberace was gay, which in hindsight is hard to believe. Gays were so oppressed back then that people didn't have a clue. Today, non-gay people have a much better "gaydar" than back then. People weren't even sure if Danny La Rue was gay!

Societies are becoming more "worldly" with experience, and this also has implications for privacy, not just in the personal domain but in the ever more canny interpretation of our personal data.

I worked in the privacy area for a few years about a decade ago. Even then, privacy issues that were a big deal are today "normal". Now there is much less fear of government departments consolidating data, seemingly only because the issue is now less publicised, even though the implications are the same. That is, information that is being collected about us is increasingly being used for purposes unrelated to the premise of the original collection, and without transparency about this fact at the time of collection. Once the law opens up more data sharing between departments, the conditions of prior information collection changes.

As our societies become more complex, with ever more procedural obstacles to getting anything done, people are increasingly looking for convenience, eg. the introduction of swipe cards for public transport. One implication is that, when you use such a card, the government knows where you are and where you are going on public transport. It's only the transport department, but that information can be gained by other agencies via court order and no doubt secret service agencies can gain access. A stroke of the pen in parliament and that data could also go to the tax office, social security, health, police and so on. With the current melding of government and private industry, it's only a matter of time before this, and other information, is made available to insurance companies.

I only use this particular issue as an example of how scope creep in this area works. There are many more pressing issues. Attitudes have changed, partially with the forceful anti-privacy campaigning by certain media moguls' outlets (eg. Murdoch & co). So people worry less about privacy than they did, and the attitudes are on display everywhere, with social media full of true birth dates, names and sometimes private and incriminating details about their lives online.

As with almost everything, to see our future we can look to Korea, China and Japan (aside from their grotesque attitudes towards women, animals, gays and the poor - basically if you are not empowered or well-connected in east Asia then you will be mercilessly bullied, exploited or left to die).

There's currently a debate in Australia about taking schoolchildren's biometrics in schools. Schools are supposed to provide reasonable ID alternatives but there is social pressure on parents, who are treated by teachers as though they are paranoid. Meanwhile Korea has used biometrics in schools and other institutions for a decade or more, and with much wider applications (I think they were first, but the practice has spread). The only privacy in east Asia resides between one's ears and (in terms of politics) that information can surmised to some extent. So many parents around the world now unthinkingly submit their children to be fingerprinted, resigned to their powerlessness, putting themsleves and their children at the government's mercy (or lack).

When I consider how society will change as populations continue to balloon, there seems a broader general trend towards the elimination of individualism. Not deliberately, but by circumstance. It stands to reason that one person in a tribe of ten is a family member and fully-fledged personality to all, but one person in a society of a hundred million is more like an anonymous cell. Cells work together to form useful tissue, so conformity is "naturally selected" in societies. Once people were "loveable eccentrics", now they are pathologised and attempts at a "cure" are made.

Introversion - the state of those who find that being around other humans all the time is not all it's cracked up to be - is increasingly being pathologised. Meanwhile, society sees no problem with the neurotic responses of many extroverts who whine like neglected puppies when they are left single or alone long enough to almost start thinking. It's the push towards collectivism. Sentience is not always a helpful quality for machine parts and, increasingly, that what we are - part of the machinery of cells.

I see a time in the future when traffic, pollution and crowding will be so great that people will tend to avoid going out, especially with ever improved internet and telecommunications access, online shopping and home deliveries. So there many of us humans will sit - like mitochondria powering our room (cell), processing the information coming in and sending information out, using the "machinery of the cell". I doubt that the greater body of society will continue to tolerate nonconformist cells. You either fit in or you will be excluded and denied.

Why should you need privacy if you have nothing to hide? [sic]

Greta wrote: Reminds me of a darker, less active and less talented Freddie Mercury after he came out. Funny thing is that in the old days none of this was on anyone's radar. People were surprised when it became "known" that Liberace was gay, which in hindsight is hard to believe. Gays were so oppressed back then that people didn't have a clue. Today, non-gay people have a much better "gaydar" than back then. People weren't even sure if Danny La Rue was gay!

Societies are becoming more "worldly" with experience, and this also has implications for privacy, not just in the personal domain but in the ever more canny interpretation of our personal data.

I worked in the privacy area for a few years about a decade ago. Even then, privacy issues that were a big deal are today "normal". Now there is much less fear of government departments consolidating data, seemingly only because the issue is now less publicised, even though the implications are the same. That is, information that is being collected about us is increasingly being used for purposes unrelated to the premise of the original collection, and without transparency about this fact at the time of collection. Once the law opens up more data sharing between departments, the conditions of prior information collection changes.

As our societies become more complex, with ever more procedural obstacles to getting anything done, people are increasingly looking for convenience, eg. the introduction of swipe cards for public transport. One implication is that, when you use such a card, the government knows where you are and where you are going on public transport. It's only the transport department, but that information can be gained by other agencies via court order and no doubt secret service agencies can gain access. A stroke of the pen in parliament and that data could also go to the tax office, social security, health, police and so on. With the current melding of government and private industry, it's only a matter of time before this, and other information, is made available to insurance companies.

I only use this particular issue as an example of how scope creep in this area works. There are many more pressing issues. Attitudes have changed, partially with the forceful anti-privacy campaigning by certain media moguls' outlets (eg. Murdoch & co). So people worry less about privacy than they did, and the attitudes are on display everywhere, with social media full of true birth dates, names and sometimes private and incriminating details about their lives online.

As with almost everything, to see our future we can look to Korea, China and Japan (aside from their grotesque attitudes towards women, animals, gays and the poor - basically if you are not empowered or well-connected in east Asia then you will be mercilessly bullied, exploited or left to die).

There's currently a debate in Australia about taking schoolchildren's biometrics in schools. Schools are supposed to provide reasonable ID alternatives but there is social pressure on parents, who are treated by teachers as though they are paranoid. Meanwhile Korea has used biometrics in schools and other institutions for a decade or more, and with much wider applications (I think they were first, but the practice has spread). The only privacy in east Asia resides between one's ears and (in terms of politics) that information can surmised to some extent. So many parents around the world now unthinkingly submit their children to be fingerprinted, resigned to their powerlessness, putting themsleves and their children at the government's mercy (or lack).

When I consider how society will change as populations continue to balloon, there seems a broader general trend towards the elimination of individualism. Not deliberately, but by circumstance. It stands to reason that one person in a tribe of ten is a family member and fully-fledged personality to all, but one person in a society of a hundred million is more like an anonymous cell. Cells work together to form useful tissue, so conformity is "naturally selected" in societies. Once people were "loveable eccentrics", now they are pathologised and attempts at a "cure" are made.

Introversion - the state of those who find that being around other humans all the time is not all it's cracked up to be - is increasingly being pathologised. Meanwhile, society sees no problem with the neurotic responses of many extroverts who whine like neglected puppies when they are left single or alone long enough to almost start thinking. It's the push towards collectivism. Sentience is not always a helpful quality for machine parts and, increasingly, that what we are - part of the machinery of cells.

I see a time in the future when traffic, pollution and crowding will be so great that people will tend to avoid going out, especially with ever improved internet and telecommunications access, online shopping and home deliveries. So there many of us humans will sit - like mitochondria powering our room (cell), processing the information coming in and sending information out, using the "machinery of the cell". I doubt that the greater body of society will continue to tolerate nonconformist cells. You either fit in or you will be excluded and denied.

Why should you need privacy if you have nothing to hide? [sic]

Very interesting and scarily true Greta. It's the excuse they use when they advocate identity cards: 'If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about'. Bullshit. Only a moron trusts those in power, and 'wrong' depends on who is in power.

Greta wrote:
When I consider how society will change as populations continue to balloon, there seems a broader general trend towards the elimination of individualism. Not deliberately, but by circumstance. It stands to reason that one person in a tribe of ten is a family member and fully-fledged personality to all, but one person in a society of a hundred million is more like an anonymous cell. Cells work together to form useful tissue, so conformity is "naturally selected" in societies. Once people were "loveable eccentrics", now they are pathologised and attempts at a "cure" are made.

Introversion - the state of those who find that being around other humans all the time is not all it's cracked up to be - is increasingly being pathologised. Meanwhile, society sees no problem with the neurotic responses of many extroverts who whine like neglected puppies when they are left single or alone long enough to almost start thinking. It's the push towards collectivism. Sentience is not always a helpful quality for machine parts and, increasingly, that what we are - part of the machinery of cells.

No one can delete your hability to do whatever you want. If you are a problem for what you call society (other people) they would like to kill you. Every one of them? no one would protect you? But if you aren't a problem, they won't do that.

There will always be people atacking those who are different, there have always been people like that, but, measuring "freedom"... well, there is more freedom today than there was 50 years ago And there is sure more freedom now than there were 500 years ago... Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition! People attack things that make them feel that they are in danger, that they can lose popularity, that someone can spread dangerous ideas for you, that someone can't be predicted so he is dangerous... but that can't be that way in a world with more people seeing each other, do you think people would be afraid of gays and would make gays jokes in that world? I've always felt precisely very... limited because of people ignorance. Suppose this, your son has been killed, you know who has killed him, but you don't have more proof than your eyes. Not enough for anyone. Now, you take revenge, and you go to jail, and you can't blame people for doing that, becaise they haven't seen all the story. But in a world without privacy, it's different, if someone wants to stop you when you try to take revenge, you know that it isn't ignorance, he is just another enemy.

You talk about profit etc, about "cells of a body" (more than half of your posts say the word society or related with it, so puagh for me), but that's absurd. First of all, because there isn't an entity to feed, there is only people, and we don't want the same, second, because, well, when the industrial revolution came, there were factorys, and now, international companys have many employees that are like cells, ok... but that's like state, in the end, each cell is looking for money or things like that, yeah, this cells prefer to work in that company, but it's ther choice. Evil people win because people prefer cheap products made by slaves... would that be equal if they see that slaves? would that be equal if they see that they are slaves?... well... do you think money would be used in that world? Do you think that, with less privacy or with the same privacy... we still need lot of cells to run proyects? Everything that goes out of human mind, can be done with a machine, well, not everything, but more things every day.

Very interesting and scarily true Greta. It's the excuse they use when they advocate identity cards: 'If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about'. Bullshit. Only a moron trusts those in power, and 'wrong' depends on who is in power.

And yes, if you are worried about your privacy, evidently, you have something you want to hide, isn't that necesary? Why would anyone care about his privacy if that person doesn't want to hide something? Even if you have some feelings like "my naked body is sacred" or whatever, you want to hide something: your body or whatever. Only a moron thinks that power exist like you describe it.

PS: I find this topic more intresting than the one about the killer, but I knew this wasn't going to catch the same attention. Fuck, i feel lonely

TSBU wrote: And yes, if you are worried about your privacy, evidently, you have something you want to hide, isn't that necesary? Why would anyone care about his privacy if that person doesn't want to hide something? Even if you have some feelings like "my naked body is sacred" or whatever, you want to hide something: your body or whatever. Only a moron thinks that power exist like you describe it.

PS: I find this topic more intresting than the one about the killer, but I knew this wasn't going to catch the same attention. Fuck, i feel lonely

You haven't thought it through very thoroughly have you? Who decides who is a 'problem'? You say those in power will be filmed too. What if they decide they don't want to be? And people value privacy for all kinds of reasons. Some people are just 'private'. It's not really anyone else's business why they want privacy.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You haven't thought it through very thoroughly have you? Who decides who is a 'problem'? You say those in power will be filmed too. What if they decide they don't want to be? And people value privacy for all kinds of reasons. Some people are just 'private'. It's not really anyone else's business why they want privacy.

You sure like to say yourself retoric questions don't you? I decide what is a problem, and you, and everybody decide what are their problems. As I said in the begining of the thread, stay on topic, suppose that they are being filmed. I can talk about how would be impossible to not being filmed in a non distant future, but I don't want to talk about that.

And I don't buy that "some people are just private". But, yes, some people have a deep feeling of hide themselves. Out of the topic too.