• Copernicus
    414
    Imagine if our every move was monitored and recorded with pinpoint accuracy with the latest tech in 2060. Every criminal act would be caught in 4K. People would have zero privacy and full and swift justice.

    Would you allow it to champion justice, or would you choose privacy instead?

    (Imagine if Epstein Island had 4K cctv footage from 500 angles)
  • kindred
    224
    I think the right to private life is a basic human right which should not be denied. It’s probably not too improbable to have devices in the future where we can see read each others minds and thoughts.

    I would opt for privacy at the risk of injustice because sometimes good or neutral deeds can be open to misinterpretation. Although transparency is trust as well because if all intention could be inferred from the beginning crime rates would dramatically drop.
  • T Clark
    16.1k
    So, 8 billion people x 24 hours x 500 angles. How does the video get processed? Where does it get stored? Who decides what is criminal and what isn’t? Who judges whether a particular behavior constitutes a crime?
  • Tom Storm
    10.8k
    So, 8 billion people x 24 hours x 500 angles. How does the video get processed? Where does it get stored? Who decides what is criminal and what isn’t? Who judges whether a particular behavior constitutes a crime?T Clark

    I imagine AI woudl be able to do it based on parameters set up by some committee /government

    Too many quesions inherent in this small sketch. I'm not all that interested in privacy or freedom as a themes so these sorts of scenarios don't set me off the way they do libertarian types.

    What does:

    People would have zero privacy and full and swift justiceCopernicus

    mean?

    If you are talking about a dystopia with instant death sentences, then perhaps not, hey?
  • Copernicus
    414
    i mean every act of crime is on live feed, no need for trial to prove it.
  • Tom Storm
    10.8k
    Cool. There should still be a process. At least I would like one. There are still situations and facts behind any action that would not be gleaned from a video alone: history, situation, etc. if you’re saying that an AI can oversee all this with no mistakes and based on human values then I might be skeptical.
  • Tzeentch
    4.4k
    No, it'd be awful for a very simple reason:

    States can be and often are wrong. This type of surveillance would give states an enormous amount of power to enforce their preferred flavor of wrong.
  • Tom Storm
    10.8k
    Yes and this too. :up:
  • LuckyR
    724

    At first glance, since the vast majority of folks are not Professional criminals, it might seem like a win, since: "it won't impact me". But 24/7 means, adultery would be found out immediately, no tax cheating, no speeding, no parking 10 minutes beyond what you paid for, no badmouthing your boss behind his back, etc. Everyone is subject to that sort of thing, perhaps many times a day, every day. I'll pass.
  • Copernicus
    414
    sounds like a win. forced holiness.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.