Legally it doesn't make much sense to gather a ton of data and say "well something might be in there" and now nobody ever sees it.

Pretty easy to just make big buckets of data nobody ever sees...

When you use the Constitution as a base line as to what it's logical for the government to do, then it's absolutely ridiculous to allow it. The only one who can argue otherwise are lawyers who represent cops/FBI/NSA whose sole purpose is to do the best job they can do, which obviously means no limits on their power. It's up to citizens to vote in law makers who actually represent our interests, the CIA/FBI/cops will only ever stick up for what is in their best interests. That swearing to protect the Constitution is really just a formality and not really applied to their daily activities.

They all take the oath to to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". It would be great if those agents of the government were held accountable to that oath, and if found guilty of otherwise face appropriate repercussions

Orwell wrote:

>when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on

Orwell was a communist, though. It sort of confuses me what he meant by all that. Did he not understand that the kind of mistreatment of humanity was what he supported? I have read his memoirs and articles, I know he was a smart guy who took big chances in Spain and places. I just don't understand why such intelligent people support big, top-down, collectivist structures.

>It's up to citizens to vote in law makers who actually represent our interests...

That just doesn't happen. And that is because the majority of voters do not know who they are voting for or what they really stand for. Voting in the US is more of a popularity contest between two teams, and the team with the most money and the most pleasing rhetoric (lies) will win.

You should read up on the 17th amendment. Our constitution has been hobbled a number of ways not originally intended.

Easier is to let a third party make and manage the buckets of data and just use a warrant to get whatever you want.

Even easier to just not worry about getting a warrant.

Yeah, no need for a warrant when you can use a National Security Letter. They even come with built-in gag orders!

I'm in Taiwan right now, and they use license plate readers to associate plates in parking lots with the parking ticket you receive to track the time you're in the mall. Sure you could use it as metadata for human analytics, but in this case I'm pretty certain its current use is for reducing queues and making checkin and checkout of parking lots more efficient.

I feel like there is a fine line between pure technology advanced convenience and actually big brother style monitoring. In Taiwan if you drop trash where you shouldn't there's a chance that a camera will capture your movement, and they will try to find out who that person is.

In China, I assume it's the same, but because of the way it's set up it gives you more of a prison feeling. At least that's what I felt like to me in Pudong, Shanghai.

What I'm saying is how can we make sure that we get the convenience part without the pervasive big brother aspect. I'm sure there is a way and I believe that's what we should focus on as technically moves on.

Similarly, the same applies to things such as medical records.

> In Taiwan if you drop trash where you shouldn't there's a chance that a camera will capture your movement, and they will try to find out who that person is.

Wouldn't a permanent surveillance reveal that humans are biologically unfit to follow "laws" and keep up with their changes? Humans do mistakes all the time, especially when they are tired or under pressure, or maybe they don't have the time to read the hundred of pages of law and they simply would like to live without fear of being prosecuted for every single small mistakes they may make.

For example, in Taiwan, if someone drops trash somewhere where they shouldn't have, and police finds you, what's are the results ? A full fine ? A warning ? An investigation to understand if the person was intentionally breaking the law ?

Wouldn't a mass surveillance system force people to never go outside, by fear of unintentionally breaking the law and get caught ?

> Wouldn't a mass surveillance system force people to never go outside, by fear of unintentionally breaking the law and get caught ?

I find it more likely that enforcement would be relatively rare, and selective. Rare so that people still go outside. Selective in a way that marginalizes anyone who gets in the way of the people in charge. After all, they'll be able to find a record of criminal activity for anyone.

It's not difficult to imagine such data being used for both benign and malevolent purposes.

Yeah, but that's not the point.

We know that this is the direction we're going. So the focus shouldn't be prohibition, but rather different ownership models to data and more sensible access to the data only to parts and the parties necessary.

Germany for example while being "sort of" privacy aware is a prime example on how not to do it. They've been deadlocked in this for decades now and can't seem to find a way out. All the while expanding infringement of data access where it shouldn't be happening.

They've been writing an own HIPAA for almost a decade now with no end in sight. They, did the same for the medical card spending a decade on discussions on privacy without actually addressing any of them.

I give you another example. The access to medical laws in Germany while good in theory make everyone sign a verbatim access to your medical history in writing which you then have to retract in writing IF you can even remember all the places you've signed this form. It looks good on paper but if you ask me it's an absolute privacy disaster.

I think you are touching a fundamental problem with humans.

One aspect is that we do make mistakes, cannot follow rigid laws to the letter and that's why we have judges. Judges are supposed to consider "all circumstances" of a particular event and have the power to decide for no punishment even if technically a law was broken. This system has been evolving for centuries, don't expect it to be solved any time soon. It's still imperfect.

The other aspect is that different parties have different motivation and no matter which system you implement, it can be "hacked". Just like any computer can be hacked. A system is a construct and if you follow the construct, you can find ways around it. So it depends on the motivation of the parties - if it's strong enough, they will find a way through. If motivations align, they will cooperate. Again, behavioral psychologists have been trying to understand how cooperation happens, and it's not a solved problem, maybe even not solvable. There will always be power plays.

It might seem like it should have a solution, that it's just about the ownership models, but this is more fundamental. I would personally be ok with cameras monitoring people who throw thrash on the streets if the punishments were somehow "reasonable", but it's just not possible. Not to mention it costs something to issue the punishment, so it doesn't make sense to issue very small punishments, and somebody needs to clean it anyway, and our technology is not 100% accurate and, and, and... So realistically there are just many easier treatments, that are "good enough", not perfect, that unfortunately leave some trash on the streets because the alternative is dystopia.

I get what you're saying but that problem already exists. Your medical data is already stored in a bunch of crappy insecure systems with inadequate protection.

So your ideal world that you're describing there already doesn't exist. Whereas working on expiring data and temporary access permissions on data you own and is stored on your own devices is a million times more secure than the cluster fuck we're trying to protect.

I was mostly referring to this thing you wrote earlier: "how can we make sure that we get the convenience part without the pervasive big brother aspect. I'm sure there is a way" - I think that simply cannot exist due to all the practical limitations with rigid systems and costs to issue punishment. And that clusterfuck is mostly the result of the power plays between multiple parties who are trying to hack each other's proposals, trying to win something over others. And that will also exist for as long as we are human. So I'm not really describing any ideal world, it is in fact quite sad. We will probably never have all our data truly in our own hands, even though it might seem easier and more secure. There are practical limitations of being human and there are competing human interests.