dagblog - Comments for "In praise of the universal surveillance state. No shame in our game."

Perhaps Ai as learned from

jollyroger — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:14:14 +0000

In reply to http://www.galleristny.com/20

Perhaps Ai as learned from DSK, the virtue of the unblinking eye...(nooo, prescioussss, nasty evil Sauron cannot have the precious, it's ours)

Sorry, momentary fugue state there...

http://www.galleristny.com/20

artappraiser — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:22:51 +0000

In reply to In praise of the universal surveillance state. No shame in our game.

http://www.galleristny.com/2012/04/ai-weiwei-sets-up-camera-inside-his-s...

Saxby Chambliss comes down

jollyroger — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:57:17 +0000

In reply to In praise of the universal surveillance state. No shame in our game.

Saxby Chambliss comes down against transparency

imagine that the cops are

jollyroger — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:49:00 +0000

In reply to Interesting point, JR, and

imagine that the cops are watching

>Funny you should say that...true story:

Early 80's I live in Berkeley, where the city council has imposed an 11 page questionnaire addressing principally the issue of what other important police activities an officer had considered and rejected in favor of making a marijuana arrest.

Cops hate paperwork.

After living under this regime for some time, I found myself in a "fern bar" on Union St. in The City. (SF). It's busy, people are sitting at each other's tables, there's two guys across from me when I pull out my habitual "bullet" three-hitter which was my "public bong" of choice. (this is so far back, you could smoke in bars...)

Just then one of the guys says, "hey, you wouldn't believe what this guy's job is (pointing to his friend)

Me, "yeah, what?"

Guy, (laughing) "He's a cop!"

I put away the pipe, no blood, no foul.

As I have remarked earlier - My secret shame: Cops like me.

I propose two necessary

jollyroger — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:38:48 +0000

In reply to Interesting point, JR, and

I propose two necessary codicils.

1. we must be impeccable.

2. We must define impeccable in libertarian terms--ie, those behaviors which at present we seek to cloak because they are both illegal and potentially embarrassing, once released from the societal sanctions which are left over from the days of clerical jurisdiction over morals, become merely embarrassing, and the new rule is that embarrassment is not a good reason to hide.

Interesting point, JR, and

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:48:00 +0000

In reply to In praise of the universal surveillance state. No shame in our game.

Interesting point, JR, and one that is seldom mentioned.

In my opinion, the Big Brother bogeyman is a rhetorical scare tactic with little connection to reality. Could the U.S. government transform itself a despotic regime that incarcerates political dissidents? I'm sure it's possible. But if it happens, a court ruling against video surveillance is hardly going to stop it.

Privacy rights only offer protection against despotism in the left-wing fantasy world of Vendetta, where righteous partisans secretly meet in camera-free zones to plot against the regime. It's the flip-side of the right-wing fantasy in which armed militias save America from totalitarianism. Great stories, bad policy.

In reality, our best defenses against despotism are more humdrum: the rule of law and as you point out, transparency.

But I would add that universal surveillance does have a steep price. There is an often-blurred distinction between a totalitarian society (i.e. the Soviet Union) and a repressive society (i.e. Singapore). Privacy rights may do little to protect us from the first, but they do help with the second. Marijuana possession, for example, violates federal law and the laws of every state with some minor exceptions. So the next time you smoke up, imagine that the cops are watching.

PS As a follow-up exercise, imagine what universal transparency would have been like when alcohol, abortion, miscegenation, and sodomy were illegal.

Well, of course, in our

jollyroger — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:57:31 +0000

In reply to Donal is right. Big Brother

Well, of course, in our hypothetical total information openess environment, we are presuming that freedom of information must be more than a sick joke wrapped up in a redacted disclosure.

I note a serendipitous controversy surrounding the occupy live streams.

Donal is right. Big Brother

NCD — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:27:52 +0000

In reply to In praise of the universal surveillance state. No shame in our game.

Donal is right. Big Brother can always seize the videos, like the security camera video across from the Pentagon on 9/11.

We're talkin' streaming

jollyroger — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:25:15 +0000

In reply to Having cameras everywhere and

We're talkin' streaming live--all feeds,. all access...

Yes, this means surveillance

jollyroger — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 20:23:49 +0000

In reply to In praise of the universal surveillance state. No shame in our game.

Yes, this means surveillance at every restaurant table in Washington DC-we get every conversation of everybody. All the time. Everybody's on Big Brother.