Online Privacy and Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
I was reading this article, but Japanese language one.
I want to know that how the people in the free software movement do think about the actual effect of controlling terrorists by mass surveillance.
Is this well argued topic? especially in U.S.A?
The possibility of the use of a nuclear bomb by terrorists would be indeed a serious fear.
I am a pessimist in this meaning.
It would be almost impossible that every human being trust each other someday.
We would become extinct, maybe, with pollution.
So possibly doing that surveillance very openly might extend the time of human beings' summer. Should we sacrifice our something for the future of human beings? Should we live for ourselves? How about the balance in online privacy?
Nuclear bombs by terrorists are not our only threats. The biggest threats to mankind during the 20th century were totalitarian governments that committed genocide against certain groups of people, and killed millions of people at a time in the process. Unlimited mass surveillance allows for the possibility of unlimited targeting of ethnic or religious or political or other groups by totalitarians.
> Nuclear bombs by terrorists are not our only threats.
Yes.
> The biggest threats to mankind during the 20th century were totalitarian governments that committed genocide against certain groups of people, and killed millions of people at a time in the process.
It might be true in a certain sense but if the World War III occured, dozens of nuclear bombs might be dropped on mainly North America and the Soviet Union.
Nuclear bombs have a strong influence on the whole global environment.
Genocide would not have such influence generally. Which is better or worse aside, nuclear bombs is the worst threat as far as I know. A priori. The biggest threat for someone who is under the threat of expulsion is not a nuclear bomb.
> Unlimited mass surveillance allows for the possibility of unlimited targeting of ethnic or religious or political or other groups by totalitarians.
I see. I imagined Africa first and immigrants in Europe then China, America, India, maybe everyplace. I can say our culture is almost mono. Almost same language, same color, same religion. It would be difficult for them to flag us as criminals to rape, torture, sometimes murder, the three desires of them, with except political matter.
btw I have not that risk, or I should say probably. For us, psychology and philosophy exist for the battle basically. Very practical. I understand that totalitarians you say in this era as the power side people. Like people in power belong to a tribe in some country of Africa. Then there is an opposite tribe.
Mass surveillance would always have the possibility of those crimes, but nobody can deny its advantage. The advantage have been controlling many crimes, of course. Good or bad aside.
I want to know how the current situation and opinions on that dilemma is. Surely everyone would have his own opinion. If there is the arthorized opinion, such thing should be called totalitarian. At least now. Then at least now, if every computer has perfect security and anonymity, the crime rate would increase... singnificantly. Please tell me how are you confuting NSA's excuses by convincing words?
For example, if Nazi Germany had Facebook, they would have had enough surveillance information to locate and kill the entire Jewish population of Europe. The fact that it took them awhile to find and round up the Jewish people kept them from completely annihilating them. The same could be said for certain ethnic people living in the Ukraine and the North Caucuses under Joseph Stalin - if he had found them all, he might have killed them all.
You can go further back - Timur, in the late 1300's, led wars that killed up to 17 million people in Persia and Central Asia. That was a full 5% of the entire human race at the time. Imagine putting mass surveillance technology in the hands of mad, genocidal killers like this.
I would argue that mass surveillance is the bigger risk. We have seen historically what certain men will do when they have that power.
Nuclear devices are a huge concern. Although I've read that the barrel bombing of Tokyo was very nearly as bad as the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What is your perspective on the barrel bombing of Tokyo in March 1945?
Indeed, the number of arrested people by mass surveillance, especially by false or artificial charges, shouldn't be neglected so it might be the biggest problem or worse problem than the possibility of terrors. They even would be able to make criminals and crimes with putting the artificial evidences into their PCs easily. Anyway the worst risk would be depend on the country, the situations, etc.
The point is, given that the aim of free software movement is freeing all the computers, it certainly encounter political things, of course.
For example, tomorrow, the President says to you guys, OK, we quit mass surveillance, after things are up to you, please govern this country without mass surveillance in peace. You guys would do better jobs than us.
You guys would respect people's freedom, especially their computer freedom. So you would not use the surveillance systems. Or do you use it for only some kinds of people? Because you think you are good guys then have good judgment? So you have the right to use the system for obvious danger people with perfect reasonable judgment. Or do not you use the system? to respect their freedom?
OK, then if the crime rate increased significanty. What will you do?
This seems the root of this philosophy. Can you say to the agent that do not do mass surveillance, but you must govern this country in peace? It sounds a bit selfish, if you cannot suggest good replacements, future visions, how to govern, etc. I can. At least I can submit clearly my ideas about this root matter. About this dilenma. Isn't this really well argued topic?
So you would not use the surveillance systems. Or do you use it for only some kinds of people? Because you think you are good guys then have good judgment?
The justice must be separated from the executive power. *Targeted* surveillance authorized by a *judge* is certainly useful in some situations. Prison is too. Although, like surveillance, it is grossly overused nowadays (what brings far more problems than it solves).
The law is based on common sense, I think. Don't murder, don't steal, don't rape, it seems that the raison d'être of the law is based on common sense. The other's feelings of unfairness. "If you are done so, you feel bad, right? why do you do that for others?" We are literally equal from the nature. Maybe very long time ago, we were feeling that as a matter of course. The consciousness of classes mess the equality. Actually we lose the feeling from mainly the consciousness. I am not saying about inherent abilities or lookings.
J.L.Godard constructed and represented the equality in the movie "Passion". At the certain point, his characters become equal, and that's should be called 'perfectly'.
In summary, if we realise the equality in real life, I think we don't need the law. This would be the race with pollution.
I am not sure if I understand your point well though, If the justice have not ugly bias, it seems the law basically would work well. I agree. If what's called a free society exists in this world, they would be caring equality respectfully.
Being evil benefits vey much so it turns every employer into a murderer. But if the majority get to know how trusting each other is comfortable (and it seems that is the thing what people desire), being evil will turn loss. He lose people's trust which most have each other. Then he has to live with the guilty conscious (if he has) until the end.
Unfortunately, still it seems that the point is that "Are you really seriously going to realise your purpose, philosophy, ideology that is freeing all the computer? How?" It seems extremely difficult, or are you just vaguely thinking like, "If it becomes so, not bad"?
> if you cannot suggest good replacements, future visions, how to govern, etc. I can
You should tell us your ideas.
After you guys.
We already have telescreen (WeChat), memory hole (Internet censorship) and thoughts police (social credit system) in China.
Richard Stallman admits that mass surveillance in United States "not reached such intensity".
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#19_March_2019_(Surveillance_society_in_China)
> We already have telescreen (WeChat), memory hole (Internet censorship) and thoughts police (social credit system) in China.
I just had heard of his name. He seems a great writer. It is great that he wrote those books in the era. I would read 1984 first someday.
> Richard Stallman admits that mass surveillance in United States "not reached such intensity".
https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jan-apr.html#19_March_2019_(Surveillance_society_in_China)
In my poor knowledge, I guess China had been having the high possibility of civil war,
so the goverment had to exercise such strong deterrent power. then it seems that the habit remains strongly, despite already succeeded in establishing very storong economy.
The same as that, the dilenma is there.
But I felt surely it is a bit too much than U.S.A's situation. Africa basically would be worse, though.
I cannot say that roll your own, it is a bit cruel.
btw long time ago, my friend told me that a certain kind of Chinese people do not trust people easy. They are really careful, but once they trust someone, they incredibly treat the one with well like as their family. He said Japanese seems surely to have such kind of tendency but Chinese people's one is more warm. Maybe he was implying some kakyou people.
May I understand that free software movement has not the concrete consensus about how to achieve the purpose that freeing all the computers?
It seems this is a important question. Because if the purpose of fsm is real, your purpose and our purpose overlap, I think. We should cooperate, I think. It is just efficient. Disunion is our enemies's job, or nature. We don't see any convincible necessity not to open the current consensus openly in any locations. For the public interests or own interests, etc. It is like a national policy. (national policy, laugh) So I think it would rather open than hide it. Or even if it is a lie, anyway it would rather open, anyway. imo. Because freeing all the computers seems to be almost impossible.
Ripper bonza beauty.
I am a translator!
Sorry John Oliver, I love you. :)
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires