Would you trade privacy to get rid of all crime and corruption?

[DrPizza]

No.

 

[zanejohnson]

i would take that, as long as pot is legal.. that's the only thing i do now that is illegal.. that would be fine...i got nothing to hide

 

[thelastjuju]

I've got nothing to hide either.. the feasibility of such a monstrosity of a beurocracy that it would require to maintain this system is what kills the idea for me.

We can't even figure out how to regulate derivatives on Wall St from crashing our economy.

:thumbsdown:

 

[IronWing]

No, and we need to roll back the surveillance in place already. We need a system to limit government surveillance at all levels of government. I understand the logic behind "no expectation of privacy" in public places. However, government should have to demonstrate a legitimate need for surveillance prior to erecting cameras all over the place. Local governments have gone hog wild on installing cameras over every intersection, a total waste of money.

 

[sandorski]

If we all voted "Yes" and it was implemented, byt the time we all realized it didn't work as suggested, we'd have Crime, Corruption, and no Privacy.

No.

 

[monovillage]

I'd like to thank the OP for showing that both the left and the right have common ground on many issues.

 

[Chiropteran]

I'm shocked at the responses. I figured there would be a few "no" votes, but I didn't think it would be so consistent.

A few points.

1- It's a thought experiment. Assume it's possible, and assume it's implemented exactly as I said, and assume it's free. If you are voting "no" because you think it will be corrupted and not actually implemented correctly, you are wrong.

2- It's not 1984. The difference is EVERYONE gives up privacy. It's not just the government watching you 24/7, it's you watching the government 24/7.

3- You would still have most of your privacy. You aren't so interesting that anyone would watch you, not unless you were a celebrity, politician, or criminal (but I repeat myself).

4- The point about legal drug use is a good one. I didn't address it in the OP, but part of the point is that if NOTHING was hidden behind closed doors, the flaws in the system will become plainly obvious. They can't arrest everybody.

5- I'd say yes. You already have no real rights to privacy- if the cops or FBI wants to put up surveillance and tap your phone lines, they can. What we have now is simply the illusion of privacy, but that illusion immediately goes away as soon as there is any attention drawn. At least in my alternate scenario we can watch those who watch us.

I'd gladly trade away the illusion of privacy if it meant the millions of lives lost or ruined every year through crime and corruption could be saved.

 

[sandorski]

I'd still say No. That's just too much an assumption to want to take.

 

[Tom]

I've got nothing to hide either.. the feasibility of such a monstrosity of a beurocracy that it would require to maintain this system is what kills the idea for me.

We can't even figure out how to regulate derivatives on Wall St from crashing our economy.

:thumbsdown:

you ever buy a soda larger than 16 oz ?

 

[Nebor]

Unqualified yes.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I'm shocked at the responses. I figured there would be a few "no" votes, but I didn't think it would be so consistent.

A few points.

1- It's a thought experiment. Assume it's possible, and assume it's implemented exactly as I said, and assume it's free. If you are voting "no" because you think it will be corrupted and not actually implemented correctly, you are wrong.

2- It's not 1984. The difference is EVERYONE gives up privacy. It's not just the government watching you 24/7, it's you watching the government 24/7.

3- You would still have most of your privacy. You aren't so interesting that anyone would watch you, not unless you were a celebrity, politician, or criminal (but I repeat myself).

4- The point about legal drug use is a good one. I didn't address it in the OP, but part of the point is that if NOTHING was hidden behind closed doors, the flaws in the system will become plainly obvious. They can't arrest everybody.

5- I'd say yes. You already have no real rights to privacy- if the cops or FBI wants to put up surveillance and tap your phone lines, they can. What we have now is simply the illusion of privacy, but that illusion immediately goes away as soon as there is any attention drawn. At least in my alternate scenario we can watch those who watch us.

I'd gladly trade away the illusion of privacy if it meant the millions of lives lost or ruined every year through crime and corruption could be saved.

4. Tell that to the Gestapo circa 1930's

 

[michal1980]

no

 

[soulcougher73]

Yes. Just to be different.

 

[Chiropteran]

4. Tell that to the Gestapo circa 1930's

That was not a democracy.

A more relevant example would be prohibition, look how long that lasted.

 

[NoStateofMind]

That was not a democracy.

A more relevant example would be prohibition, look how long that lasted.

You hold too much faith in government.

 

[BoberFett]

That was not a democracy.

Recheck your history.

 

[Chiropteran]

Recheck your history.

Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich, is the common name for Germany when it was a totalitarian state ruled by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). On 30 January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, quickly eliminating all opposition to rule as sole leader.

Nope, not a democracy. Nice try though.

You hold too much faith in government.

Oh, you have it so wrong. I suggest this idea simply because I have no faith in government.

That is the beauty of this system. You don't need ANY faith in your government if everything they do is recorded. The moment something improper occurs, it's recorded for everyone to see and it's time for immediate impeachment.

On the other hand, you must have a lot of faith in our government, if you believe they can be trusted to do the right thing when nobody is watching or recording.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I'm shocked at the responses. I figured there would be a few "no" votes, but I didn't think it would be so consistent.

A few points.

1- It's a thought experiment. Assume it's possible, and assume it's implemented exactly as I said, and assume it's free. If you are voting "no" because you think it will be corrupted and not actually implemented correctly, you are wrong.

2- It's not 1984. The difference is EVERYONE gives up privacy. It's not just the government watching you 24/7, it's you watching the government 24/7.

3- You would still have most of your privacy. You aren't so interesting that anyone would watch you, not unless you were a celebrity, politician, or criminal (but I repeat myself).

4- The point about legal drug use is a good one. I didn't address it in the OP, but part of the point is that if NOTHING was hidden behind closed doors, the flaws in the system will become plainly obvious. They can't arrest everybody.

5- I'd say yes. You already have no real rights to privacy- if the cops or FBI wants to put up surveillance and tap your phone lines, they can. What we have now is simply the illusion of privacy, but that illusion immediately goes away as soon as there is any attention drawn. At least in my alternate scenario we can watch those who watch us.

I'd gladly trade away the illusion of privacy if it meant the millions of lives lost or ruined every year through crime and corruption could be saved.

NO NO NO. And who watches those watching over you??? And who is to say that all laws are just? We just bow down to those decision makers and hope they don't make any stupid laws that can be easily abused? That day will never happen.

 

[dank69]

NO NO NO. And who watches those watching over you??? And who is to say that all laws are just? We just bow down to those decision makers and hope they don't make any stupid laws that can be easily abused? That day will never happen.

Yeah, I can't drive 55. I'd have to blow my brains out. Would I be able to blow my brains out before someone stopped me, Chiro?

 

[zinfamous]

Yes!


Oh shit, I meant No!

 

[Munky]

Hell No.

 

[SandEagle]

will i get in trouble for peeing in public? if yes, then no.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

It's an interesting concept, taken to it's logical extreme. How many of you played the original Deus Ex? The conversation with the prototype system was something.

JC DENTON
I don't see anything amusing about spying on people.

MORPHEUS
Human beings feel pleasure when they are watched. I have recorded their smiles as I tell them who they are.

JC DENTON
Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance.

MORPHEUS
The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.

JC DENTON
Electronic surveillance hardly inspired reverence. Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.

MORPHEUS
God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgment, and punishment. Other sentiments toward them were secondary.

JC DENTON
No one will ever worship a software entity peering at them through a camera.

MORPHEUS
The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment.

JC DENTON
You underestimate humankind's love of freedom.

MORPHEUS
The individual desires judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization.

The human being created civilization not because of a willingness but because of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning. God was a dream of good government.

You will soon have your God, and you will make it with your own hands. I was made to assist you. I am a prototype of a much larger system.

'Course, it went a good bit further then the topic here. Instead of just constant surveillance, they were pushing 100% surveillance and analysis. Instantaneous democracy, no actual voting ever required, because the system knew what every human alive would think on any idea, given they had access to all available information and time to think about it.

 

[RampantAndroid]

All no's in this thread are criminals or corrupt.

Yes, a resounding yes. We are not entitled to our privacy. It's a fabrication of our judicial branch. It's not in our constitution really aside from unreasonable searches and seizures, but with essentially non-invasive searches such as wiretapping, surveillance cameras, and drones, it is a non-issue. It was initially contemplated when a search was people busting down your door and turning over your entire house, not a little camera on the end of a wire fished through your HVAC ducts.

You're crazy. The 4th amendment DOES grant privacy. That's its intent.

Hell, the constitution is written about privacy:

1st amendment protects privacy of beliefs
3rd amendment is protecting privacy by not having soldiers in your home
4th protects from privacy being violated without probable cause
5th further protects privacy by allowing a citizen to not self incriminate themselves.

 

[RampantAndroid]

5- I'd say yes. You already have no real rights to privacy- if the cops or FBI wants to put up surveillance and tap your phone lines, they can.

But only with probably cause.

Don't be so naive. Even the patriot act has some expectations of there being probable cause...