>> Is it possible to have a free society that's completely surveilled?
>It is, if a society's ethical and legal code and how its members actually behave are closely aligned (which prevents blackmail), surveillance is done by all to all, and the government has limited ability to arrest and prosecute.
Anonymity and privacy would still have to be respected for it to work. While I believe that this is possible (just finishing up first draft of my first novel, a scifi that looks at this) it's not going to be achieved by legislating our way to it (or that it'll even originate from our governments).
The main thing I think to point out is that individuals shouldn't be the ones we're keeping eyes on. Governments, corporations, charities, religions, and unions - basically any group of people - is where we should be demanding complete transparency, and surveillance by all.
Do you view the government as benign? What if that were to change?
Do you view all governments as benign? Foreign governments can further justify their actions by pointing at so called "free", and "democratic" nations and say if they can do it, so can we.
Do you trust these organizations (government or otherwise) to secure your data?
Governments change. Conditions change. Imagine another large criminal act in the US where thousands perish. The citizenry starts demanding more and more invasions of privacy, in futile attempts to stop further attacks. As each generation grows up with less and less privacy, they become even more accustomed to it. Is it possible to have a free society that's completely surveilled?
> And if it was warrantless then it's inadmissible anyhow, right?
In 2015, not a single one of the FISA applications for a warrant were rejected.
> If you don't want them "taking" your info, just don't speak to them.
GHCQ in the UK collects massive amounts of data on all internet users. You don't have any choice, if you're operating on anything but the dark web. The issues we're facing here have never been faced before. It's never been possible for the police/governments to just record and store everything, making it possible for them, or some future government, to use it against you.
I should also point out - when I say you, I don't mean you. Or me. We're just two idiots on the internet. I'm talking about people with power. Or journalists, who want to expose wrong doing. Judges, who are going to decide whether or not to put that person in jail (or let them off). Maybe even other police. Oh, this officer wants to report me for corruption? Find out what shit we have on him, make it stick. Nothing? Well, easy enough to add data, and problem solved.
If you're not convinced - think about it this way. This is the exact opposite of what should be happening. We should know what our governments are doing, what they're spending OUR money on. We should know when a corporation is planning to pollute the air so that they can sell more cars. We should know if a moral pillar of our community is a den of pedophiles. WE should have the information on THEM, not the other way around.
The competition must have known that VW was cheating, yet not one "competitor" called them out on it.
The whole thing is a systemic failure. Regulations don't work. Regulators are generally lousy at their jobs (if they aren't working for the regulatees, they will be - I'm talking about the top regulators, mind you). The "free market" failed, because if everyone is cheating no one is cheating.
It's time we start working on a replacement, because what we've got now is busted.
What? Where is he inciting people to get out onto the streets? He doesn't. He's asking a valid question, that a lot of people including economists are asking.
The poor and middle class are getting crushed. It hasn't quite hit the demographics that read HN, but it'll eventually happen.
One of the issues with PKI is ensuring that the public key you're using to communicate with the person is actually the right public key, and that someone hasn't replaced it with their own.
I'm curious if you used something like the blockchain (but not bitcoin necessarily) to have a public ledger of published public keys (identities) would that problem be essentially solved? (IE if the keys and any signing for a web of trust be on a distributed public ledger, then you could be reasonably sure that you're dealing with the person really behind that public key?)
> CO2 is not strictly human emissions and to imply so is so dishonest is ridiculous.
That was never implied. In fact, they made a point of comparing human driven emissions (which includes things like transportation and agriculture) to natural sources (eg volcanoes).
> the primary co2 process is ocean to atmosphere exchange, the earth to atmosphere, and then to mammals respiratory activity
Well, you're missing some stuff in there. Like plants n stuff.
> finally since their numbers only are observable to 1880, how accurate can we assume them to be?
This chart has data back to 1880. Ice core samples, tree rings, whole hosts of other parts of science go back much farther than 1880. All of it seems to corroborate each other.
> If were are extrapolating we could do it further back than 1880 to periods where man was present in significant numbers and thew world was warmer
> Take numbers out of context, put in easily to dismiss arguments along side, and it appears to make your point beyond reproach
Hm, sort of like simplifying the CO2 cycle to a few words, missing a bunch of it, and then somehow pretending to think that that explains things much better than hundreds of scientists who have given us the science that shows that this is mainly due to human causes.
Head up to the Arctic. Talk to people whose families have lived there forever and see for yourself. I think that's the only way to convince people like yourself.
You're basically saying anything funded by government that might impact economics, and thus revenues, is biased. Right..
You do realize that you can be against taxing say, income and profits, but be for taxing carbon? I think quite a few economists would agree that you tax things that you want less of. A simplified carbon tax could be a boon to business.
You're exactly right. While we look at this stuff as despicable, because it really is, we can't blame the companies. Except ... we can, right? They're the ones who have manipulated the tax codes, right? They're practically writing the laws, right? Ultimately though, the politicians are the ones who are passing the laws. They're the ones who are being bribed, excuse me, funded, by corporations and the wealthy. To blame corporations for taking every advantage of the system, to manipulate it in whatever way possible, is silly. Capitalism rewards innovation. It rewards plugging the holes that cost money (and taxes can be quite a big hole). These can be great benefits to everyone to some extent, but they also eventually lead to buying out competitors which reduces competition, which can result in big, lazy companies who'd rather legislate than innovate - I'm looking at you, Cable Company and Telephone Company, or the Media conglomerates. That's what we have the world over.
Maybe it's just me, but for me, the problem is our political system - it's not designed to withstand these corrupting forces. Some countries deal with it slightly better, but barely just.
I like competitive capitalism. I like democracy, and even the idea of a representative democracy. But they don't play well together when you have the capitalists ultimately deciding who gets to represent the people, and then those representatives bending in every which way to make things easier for their funders. When you have a system that rewards bribery, or has in its place a revolving door between legislators and business, you're going to have these effects. The solution to this I think is really rather simple, but I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.
>It is, if a society's ethical and legal code and how its members actually behave are closely aligned (which prevents blackmail), surveillance is done by all to all, and the government has limited ability to arrest and prosecute.
Anonymity and privacy would still have to be respected for it to work. While I believe that this is possible (just finishing up first draft of my first novel, a scifi that looks at this) it's not going to be achieved by legislating our way to it (or that it'll even originate from our governments).
The main thing I think to point out is that individuals shouldn't be the ones we're keeping eyes on. Governments, corporations, charities, religions, and unions - basically any group of people - is where we should be demanding complete transparency, and surveillance by all.