Philosophy Discussion: Privacy vs. Openness

[roadscape]

Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange on #RT10 panel
https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10/

Privacy “will not be coming back, short of a very regressive economic collapse, which reduces the technological capacity of civilization,” Assange said.

“The reason it will not come back is that the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing by about 50 per cent every 18 months, because it’s the underlying cost that’s predicated on the cost of telecommunications, moving surveillance intercepts around and computerization and storage – all those costs are decreasing much faster at a geometric rate than the human population is increasing,” he explained.

Mass surveillance and computerization are “winning” the competition with humanity and human values and they’re “going to continue to win at an ever-increasing rate. That’s the reality that we have to deal with,” the WikiLeaks whistleblower added.

 

Definitely worth watching, great discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3rFNQ8ytnE

[Tuck Fheman]

So why are so many computer geeks incentivized to work for the coercion and surveillance  teams rather then the privacy and freedom teams?

[onceuponatime]

Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange on #RT10 panel
https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10/

Privacy “will not be coming back, short of a very regressive economic collapse, which reduces the technological capacity of civilization,” Assange said.

“The reason it will not come back is that the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing by about 50 per cent every 18 months, because it’s the underlying cost that’s predicated on the cost of telecommunications, moving surveillance intercepts around and computerization and storage – all those costs are decreasing much faster at a geometric rate than the human population is increasing,” he explained.

Mass surveillance and computerization are “winning” the competition with humanity and human values and they’re “going to continue to win at an ever-increasing rate. That’s the reality that we have to deal with,” the WikiLeaks whistleblower added.

So why are so many computer geeks incentivized to work for the coercion and surveillance  teams rather then the privacy and freedom teams?

[lovejoy]

Game for privacy is gone, mass surveillance is here to stay – Assange on #RT10 panel
https://www.rt.com/news/325524-assange-privacy-rt-10/

Privacy “will not be coming back, short of a very regressive economic collapse, which reduces the technological capacity of civilization,” Assange said.

“The reason it will not come back is that the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing by about 50 per cent every 18 months, because it’s the underlying cost that’s predicated on the cost of telecommunications, moving surveillance intercepts around and computerization and storage – all those costs are decreasing much faster at a geometric rate than the human population is increasing,” he explained.

Mass surveillance and computerization are “winning” the competition with humanity and human values and they’re “going to continue to win at an ever-increasing rate. That’s the reality that we have to deal with,” the WikiLeaks whistleblower added. 

[luckybit]

Transparency needs an information threshold.  The easier it is to unearth information the more value will be placed on technology that protects information.  This privacy tech would be adopted by everyone. 

The conclusion is that the for every action there is a reaction. Push people into transparency and watch demand for real privacy increase. 

We need privacy by technology not by laws.

People need to realize, privacy is a matter of life and death for some people. For the people who need privacy to live, arguments for transparency don't make sense. The issue with privacy isn't a matter of everyone having the option to go transparent, or some force making everyone transparent at the same time, but it's likely to be that the first to go transparent are the first to be torn apart by the angry self righteous ignorant mob.

The moment everyone is transparent the quote miners will have a high paying job of finding  stuff people said which can be easily pulled out of context. The richest people in society will hire these quote miners to destroy anyone who gets in their way by using transparency. The angry self righteous ignorant mob will see quotes taken out of context, and then destroy people based out weird quotes from 5 or 10 years ago. It may even get so bad that people will someday be persecuted because they had obscene thoughts, because in a fully transparent society even your thoughts must be policed.

As far as government agencies go, undercover cops, informants, even they need privacy. Bytemaster made a good point that in a world without privacy you can't have government agents but he was wrong about something else. In a world where humans can't be government agents, the government agents will be machines, robots, software informants.

The French Revolution: Crash Course World History #29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTTvKwCylFY

Terror Robespierre and the French Revolution Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knDe_EZSxTw

Terror Robespierre and the French Revolution Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPWw1sKYNXY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Suspects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

[yvv]

as Lenin once said:  'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.'

Lenin never said anything like this. This phrase is often assigned to Joseph Stalin. It is one of many myths made up in political emigrant circles.

[sittingduck]

Transparency needs an information threshold.  The easier it is to unearth information the more value will be placed on technology that protects information.  This privacy tech would be adopted by everyone. 

The conclusion is that the for every action there is a reaction. Push people into transparency and watch demand for real privacy increase. 

We need privacy by technology not by laws. 

[Thom]

My post was a bit long but the point, I don't think human beings currently are psychologically, culturally, or socially prepared for total transparency. It would be like giving nuclear weapons to a toddler and then expecting something good to happen. You either have to somehow make the toddler think as an adult, or you have to augment the thinking of the toddler with algorithms, using machine intelligence.

I don't think we have enough time to somehow make the toddler into an adult. So if we are going to give the toddler the God's eye view, we probably should augment the toddler by giving the toddler decision support, so that every human being can overcome bias, make rational decisions, follow science, factor in the results of the latest studies and experiments, etc.

But I do not think the current humans who make decisions on how it feels, or based on a holy book, or based on "gut", or anything similar to that, should be judging other humans based on this. Unfortunately  the vast majority of humans aren't enlightened, aren't aware of their own ignorance, aren't educated (and the United States in particular doesn't even value education or critical thinking), and you end up with a society of people who are proudly ignorant, who are asking for more transparency, so they can apply religious morality or other biases on everyone.

Consider that the majority of people are of certain major religions. Consider that a lot of people do not make decisions based on the perceived consequences, but based on whether or not their religion, or a book from thousands of years ago, says it's good or bad. Consider most people don't keep track of the latest results in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, or anything else, and consider that the United States has more prisoners per capita than any other country?

Do you feel confident that the average United States citizen could handle the amount of information which will be made available without using it for political or social or psychological persecution? If we had an enlightened citizen maybe I could have more faith, but currently we do not and you can just look around and see that. There also is not a trend toward enlightenment or education.

Well said luckybit, those are excellent arguments against total transparency. I couldn't have articulated it as well as that, rather, my reservations were an emotional embodiment of the rational perspective you so eloquently delivered.
 

[lovejoy]

The American Commonwealth, Volume 2 - James Bryce - 1888

This author had never experienced 21st century propaganda, but I appreciate the sentiment, from which Louis Brandeis would later state that: “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

I just listened to the mumble... I have to think about it some more, but my initial reaction is that yes, we need a great deal more transparency across the board, as well as the option to remain utterly private.  Authority has a greater burden of proof in the exercise of privacy, or secrecy.

I think Dan is onto something here, Facebook has proved that people are willing to share a whole lot of information for the betterment of a small group of elites.  Who will build a platform which leverages that same willingness for the betterment of everyone?

[luckybit]

If someone knows exactly how you will vote, they'll offer you carrot or stick to change your vote. You vote the way they like and you are rewarded, and you against their interests and maybe taxes are higher for you, and prices rise in stores for you, and friends stop being your friend.

Votes have to be secret to have any value or to be free of coercion. At the same time you don't need votes if you have machine intelligence which can decide based on your criteria.

In a transparent society all we would have is algorithms. Democracy becomes impossible.

Don't those things happen anyway?  Don't people buy votes indirectly or directly?  And is vote buying really bad? 

With provable ballots though they no longer have the expense of indirectly buying your vote, they just need to use their existing power apparatus  to coerce, intimidate and threaten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Act_1872

Employers and land owners had been able to use their sway over employees and tenants to influence the vote, either by being present themselves or by sending representatives to check on the votes as they were being cast.
Many within the establishment had opposed the introduction of a secret ballot. They felt that pressure from patrons on tenants was legitimate and that a secret ballot was simply unmanly and cowardly.
The Ballot Act 1872 was of particular importance in Ireland, as it enabled tenants to vote against the landlord class in parliamentary elections.

Essentially we won't give you any money but if you don't vote for the right guy, you're out of a job and you need to find a new place to live.

In the majority of countries today that have secret ballots but also have a weak rule of law, voter violence, intimidation by a corrupted police, gangs, and even in some African countries, mass killing of opposition is far more common practice than vote buying imo.  (A situation that would be made far worse if someone could actually prove who they voted for.)

http://irevolution.net/2009/01/17/the-prospects-for-cyberocracy/
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1325809

Ronfeldt adds that “the existence of democracy does not assure that the new technology will strengthen democratic tendencies and be used as a force for good rather than evil. The new technology may be a double-edged sword even in a democracy.” To this end, “far from favoring democracy or totalitarianism, cyberocracy may facilitate more advanced forms of both. It seems as likely to foster further divergence as convergence, and divergence has been as much the historical rule as convergence.”

Furthermore, Ronfeldt argues that while “in the past the divergence principle was most evident between countries,” a future possibility “is that the principle may increasingly apply within countries. The information revolution may enable hybrid systems to take form that do not fit standard distinctions between democracy and totalitarianism.  In these systems, part of the populace may be empowered to act more democratically than ever, but other parts may be subjected to new techniques of surveillance and control.”

Now think about what the role of the press will be in a transparent society?

[Empirical1.2]

If someone knows exactly how you will vote, they'll offer you carrot or stick to change your vote. You vote the way they like and you are rewarded, and you against their interests and maybe taxes are higher for you, and prices rise in stores for you, and friends stop being your friend.

Votes have to be secret to have any value or to be free of coercion. At the same time you don't need votes if you have machine intelligence which can decide based on your criteria.

In a transparent society all we would have is algorithms. Democracy becomes impossible.

Don't those things happen anyway?  Don't people buy votes indirectly or directly?  And is vote buying really bad? 

With provable ballots though they no longer have the expense of indirectly buying your vote, they just need to use their existing power apparatus  to coerce, intimidate and threaten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Act_1872

Employers and land owners had been able to use their sway over employees and tenants to influence the vote, either by being present themselves or by sending representatives to check on the votes as they were being cast.
Many within the establishment had opposed the introduction of a secret ballot. They felt that pressure from patrons on tenants was legitimate and that a secret ballot was simply unmanly and cowardly.
The Ballot Act 1872 was of particular importance in Ireland, as it enabled tenants to vote against the landlord class in parliamentary elections.

Essentially we won't give you any money but if you don't vote for the right guy, you're out of a job and you need to find a new place to live.

In the majority of countries today that have secret ballots but also have a weak rule of law, voter violence, intimidation by a corrupted police, gangs, and even in some African countries, mass killing of opposition is far more common practice than vote buying imo.  (A situation that would be made far worse if someone could actually prove who they voted for.)

[luckybit]

If someone knows exactly how you will vote, they'll offer you carrot or stick to change your vote. You vote the way they like and you are rewarded, and you against their interests and maybe taxes are higher for you, and prices rise in stores for you, and friends stop being your friend.

Votes have to be secret to have any value or to be free of coercion. At the same time you don't need votes if you have machine intelligence which can decide based on your criteria.

In a transparent society all we would have is algorithms. Democracy becomes impossible.

Don't those things happen anyway?  Don't people buy votes indirectly or directly?  And is vote buying really bad? 

Question as it relates to DPOS:   Would you rather know Bytemaster is controlling a huge proxy vote and gives reasons for voting one way or the other or some anonymous entity with the same influence that keeps quiet and whose votes are secret?

In a world without secrecy why would your vote matter at all? They can say vote for them or else. Vote buying take place because of the fact that the wannabe dictators don't know who you voted for or who votes for who so they have to provide incentives.

In the case of DPOS I would prefer anonymous entities. Current DPOS is vulnerable to coercion as well as MITM attacks. Bytemaster may or may not be in control of his private keys, his voting power, etc. Whomever controls Bytemaster controls how he votes, and if we don't know who the voters are then we actually have better security because COERCION RESISTANCE is essential for voting.

I prefer anonymous organizations as proxies specifically because every individual is corruptible or can be coerced by other more violent warlike institutions or individuals. For now Bitshares hasn't had much of a problem because the market cap isn't high enough for it to be much of an target for organized crime, but that will eventually change. In Bitcoin organized criminals already target large holders and we don't even know to what extent.

[merivercap]

If someone knows exactly how you will vote, they'll offer you carrot or stick to change your vote. You vote the way they like and you are rewarded, and you against their interests and maybe taxes are higher for you, and prices rise in stores for you, and friends stop being your friend.

Votes have to be secret to have any value or to be free of coercion. At the same time you don't need votes if you have machine intelligence which can decide based on your criteria.

In a transparent society all we would have is algorithms. Democracy becomes impossible.

Don't those things happen anyway?  Don't people buy votes indirectly or directly?  And is vote buying really bad? 

Question as it relates to DPOS:   Would you rather know Bytemaster is controlling a huge proxy vote and gives reasons for voting one way or the other or some anonymous entity with the same influence that keeps quiet and whose votes are secret?

[luckybit]

If someone knows exactly how you will vote, they'll offer you carrot or stick to change your vote. You vote the way they like and you are rewarded, and you against their interests and maybe taxes are higher for you, and prices rise in stores for you, and friends stop being your friend.

Votes have to be secret to have any value or to be free of coercion. At the same time you don't need votes if you have machine intelligence which can decide based on your criteria.

In a transparent society all we would have is algorithms. Democracy becomes impossible.

[merivercap]

I've had similar related thoughts on commerce & voting.  It would be great to continue the discussion here...

You definitely don't want to be able to prove 'who' you voted for in the overwhelming majority of countries & situations imo. (Which I think was the original premise of FMV which I didn't like.) 

However if there was some blockchain based algorithm where if you voted for 'Bob' privately,  the vote was mathematically certain to be given to 'Bob' without you/someone being able to tell that you specifically voted for 'Bob' after that would be useful.

Can you tell me about stories in other countries?  It may be something about people being beaten or killed for their vote?  I've heard that a few times.   If that happens how can you even campaign without risk of having the same thing happen and how can you make any progress?   Isn't the problem with those that are committing the act of violence instead of those that submitted the open vote?

I was in politics for 5+ years during the Ron Paul campaign and learned a bit about caucuses, the electoral college,  representative republics and I'm sure almost everything was based on an open vote with open debate.   The system we had here in early America and instituted by our founding fathers was far superior compared to direct democracy.   Voting was based on merit, passion, dedication of local delegates who would be voted as city & county delegates all the way up to the state and national levels.  It still general works this way with both major parties.  That's far superior than what we have today which are massive campaigns to sway the opinion of the uninformed in a popular vote. 

Also no one would be able to cheat the vote... as Lenin once said:  'Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.'