Hard disagree. Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations. When it's misused by individuals it's usually based on information freely given. An individual might send your employer an insensitive tweet you made ten years ago but an organization can do anything from unmasking an anonymous product review for the purpose of suing you to operating a massive surveillance state to fuel a "social credit" system.

Of course. There are more individuals in larger organizations :)

To your last point, I personally skew towards being deeply suspicious of institutional power being able to have more tools to further leverage the tilt against the individual, but you're also not wrong with individuals being deeply flawed beings too.

That's going to depend heavily on which individual.

People have pointed out that "humane totalitarian" is an oxymoron, and I agree, but I think it's the challenge we face.

It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streaming their lives. (This is in the context where we are all live-streaming 24/7 whether we want to or not, which is pretty much the case today at least in high-tech nations.) Police badges should be integrated with cameras, the badge IS the camera, the camera IS the badge, and if the camera is off the officer is off-duty.

Thoughts?

- - - -

I think the panopticon is unavoidable due to technological and economic considerations. The technology is only getting smaller, cheaper, lower-power, etc. and it's already ubiquitous. (See "sensing for WiFi if you really want to freak out!) Our phones already monitor and report our location in near realtime. Smart cars and traffic systems are a de facto surveillance system even for people who don't carry phones. The economic benefits are inarguable, and only going to get better.

And really, if you could trade your privacy for an end to almost all crime, isn't that worth it? Considering that you wouldn't be alone, that everyone else's privacy is gone too, it's not so bad?

This all sounds equally as feasible as simply rolling back the surveillance in the first place. The whole point of these systems is to subject the hoi polloi to constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic. Why in the world would they agree to do that to themselves as well?

The "constant and intrusive surveillance as a counterinsurgency tactic" is a side-effect. And frankly, we should be so lucky that it works (when it works.) I personally think the time for deciding things by violence-- any violence --has passed.

In re: political power, we'll see how it plays out in different systems. In China the question is, Will CCP members be subject to the Social Credit System?

In democracies we should be able to reshape our systems to take advantage of modern technology to make boring, functioning governing bodies that "just work", but we have to get from here to there.

And, if somehow you manage to prevent abuse like the above, laws will be passed that grant exceptions for the powerful and their enforcers[2][3]. Many of the existing laws in this category recognize that privacy is essential for personal security and safety-- but only grant that security and safety to the privileged few.

We need to enshrine a strong right to privacy in law-- attacking surveillance head on (in the US, this means a constitutional amendment, or it will be [more] vulnerable to laws/courts granting exceptions). While sympathetic, I don't think that trying to reign in surveillance through making it equitable (on paper), are going to succeed.

[1] https://www.insideedition.com/21559-investigation-finds-poli...

[2] https://www.ocregister.com/2009/11/12/special-license-plates...

[3] https://www.menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/press/menendez-book...

What makes you think so? For example, the German government prevented a number of terror attacks by monitoring electronic chat and mail exchange.

That balance is not something that would remain uninfluenced by giving the executive the power to surveil the population that brings a government into power.

Fear drives surveillance ambitions and some stereotypes have some merit.