Laws

[Junkenstein]

As technology progresses, I've been increasingly thinking about Laws and the justice system.

To start with, it's an odd word to use; Law. It would imply, that like say Gravity, it would apply and be enforced all the time. Without fail or favour. It seems to me that we are increasingly reaching a point where it would in fact be trivial to do this.

Think about it. Everything on-line is monitored by a variety of folk. You're on CCTV from the moment you leave indoors. Staying inside is an option but the phones are tapped and they can just switch on your mobile's microphone whenever they feel bored. Hell, they can go old school and just stick remote surveillance on your place and watch the windows to know exactly what you're actually saying. Sound reconstruction is crazily advanced now. Or go quite modern and just shine a laser at your place to know what you own that you shouldn't. This is all assuming they don't want to get handsy and come a-knocking.

Now, that might sound slightly paranoid, with the "they" and the remarkably intrusive shit for no reason. And yet it happens. Constantly. Daily. Increasingly frequently.

So, Laws. As before, I would understand a Law to be something that would be enforced constantly. And it seems so easy to do so given that half of the above is done to you already whether you like it or not. For your own safety, of course.

Upon then pondering the myriad of Laws that I am apparently bound to obey, the natural conclusion would seem to be that I am a horrendous criminal, as well as likely everyone else I know. Take a simple motorway journey. Sit in the slow lane at 80. You'll be being overtaken by around 70% of traffic. Anywhere. Minimum. A GPS system to monitor this is a pittance. If even the simplest of traffic laws were enforced with 100% efficiency, then there would be stunning numbers of banned drivers overnight. You literally wouldn't be able to build the required jails and such quickly to deal with it.

This leads me to thinking that we may need to look at some of the crimes we punish and how we punish them. Honestly, consider what your potential fine or jail term is just from what you've done today. If you honestly think it's nothing then the chances are you're not familiar with all of the laws that apply to you. You certainly aren't skilled at thinking like a servant of the Law.

Which leads to enforcement. The classic scene of a dossier filled with pictures slapped in front of the guilty. You're very, very guilty. Of what? Well, what would you like to talk about? By default, you're having this conversation with someone who has access to at least the crudest methods of surveillance, and if so inclined likely others. This is an easy reality for anyone who wants to bother. Most of the time they won't need to as you're already spilling your guts. Do you think confessions and testimonies against others increase or decrease in a recession? Check it out, I wonder why those numbers are like that.

There are, surely, some Laws that universal enforcement would be laudable. Crimes against beings and to a relevant extent property should probably prevented and deterred. Just saying there's obviously some lines that most would like to draw.

To me, the current various justice systems seem to be lacking incredibly behind what current technology could potentially enforce. You would need to take an immediate look at every single law and consider the what 100% enforcement would do and if if such a thing is wise.

And then I think, I am a horrible old man. Surely brighter, younger minds have considered the shape of the society they are perpetuating into the future.

I look at the politicians and I wonder.

I look at the police and I wonder.

I look at the press and I wonder.


I wonder when they will all stop being so fucking stupid and help people.

[Junkenstein]

As I often do, I am forced to consider the possibility that I am terribly mistaken.

Perhaps we need to be a bit more grateful to the Press/Police/Political classes. Huge numbers of these would be the first to fall to 100% enforcement of laws involving say, corruption. It might just be the one saving grace for the UK that it's dodgy as fuck from top to toe.

It's pretty nicely established now that in this day and age, Billionaires and the highly affluent are subject to a totally different implementation of Laws. I can see a case to be argued for them protecting themselves in some means has placed occasionally barriers that inadvertently protect more people than intended. Not a strong case, but if you're spiteful enough you can argue most things.

Now it may seem somewhat laughable that the only real protections now for your privacy are based on your political leaders having worse things to hide. I can't discount it though. If the pornography habits of "political radicals" gets monitored as a normal thing, why would you not take 5 minutes and apply it to your political leaders? You would be insane not to. I'd put money I don't even have on that existing.


Or I might be yet more mistaken and there's clearly no problems with the Laws we use at all. Why disrupt a system designed to systematically punish those who overtly oppose it?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Laws need optimised. Stripped down to the bare essentials. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't lie. We are rapidly approaching a situation where we can prevent these things. Deal with them before, not after they happen. Minority report? Yup, it's less than a decade away. It won't work quite the same way as it does in the movie - psychic mutants plugged into the internet but the net effect will be the same. The annihilation of privacy (trust me - you really will appreciate it when you see it) via ubiquitous micro (later nano) -scale sensors will know when something's about to go down. Drones will intervene to prevent the crime taking place faster than the human can carry it out.

The current mountain of ridiculous legislation won't work. You're absolutely right - everyone would end up in jail. We'll have to dump them and go back to basics. So I can almost hear the grinding of teeth from the Orwell followers reading this. The abuse. The human rights violations. Right? Wrong. What will happen in a totally transparent society is that there will be no place for Big Brother. Everyone can see through him, just like he can see through everyone. People can spy on you taking a shit or jacking off to tubgirl videos but guess what - you can see them spying on you and so can all their friends.

What's going to happen is people are going to be forced to become a lot more tolerant. People are going to be forced to become a lot more polite. To the point where you can fuck your significant other on a busy street corner and no one will watch because they'll know that you don't want them to and that will be enough. The reason this sounds far fetched is because, although this level of mutual respect and politeness is most people's ideal, the fact is that most of the human race are biologically and psychologically incapable of practising it. Transparency, not privacy is the key to this. Openness, as opposed to sneaking around and hiding which, when it comes right down to it is the fundamental nature of privacy. 

The laws of the future are implicit. "Do what thou wilt", "Be excellent to each other", "Live and let live"

Our technology will not "Enforce" these laws.

Our technology will "Enable" them.

[Junkenstein]

Our technology will not "Enforce" these laws.

Our technology will "Enable" them.

This is part of what is concerning me. To begin with, the technology exists that could trivially enforce multiple laws to a high degree. Maybe not 100%, but certainly considerably more than currently. We've created technology that would allow detection of say, drug crimes, with a massively increased rate than is currently being done. The main reason I'm guessing this isn't done is probably selective enforcement. Bankers keep getting their fix, the ghetto is around to quickly make up low arrest numbers. Every strata of society is involved to some level (How many police/politicians/journos would pass a piss test tomorrow? Not all.) in either distribution or use/addiction. For something we've apparently been waging war on since the 70's/80's, you would have thought that all this new tech would be a boon. Yet the arrests and relevant enforcement seem quite unchanged. Did you see any bank institute a mass piss test? Ever? The answers are not difficult to find. Reasons for said answers even easier.*

The idea of technology enforcing laws is obviously troubling in some regards. It's quite amusing in others. It changes vastly depending on what law you consider.

You seem quite confident in the virtues of a transparent society. To that, I say its going to be exactly as good as the Laws and enforcement of said laws make it. I haven't really considered this angle as fully as I should, so I'm going to shut up and do exactly that.




*Everyone's on crack. Everyone.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm looking at the end result - total 100% transparency. The problems come in the interim. Anything less than 100%, even by half of a half of 1%, creates a nightmare oligarchy of centralised power. The road to that last % may be long and arduous. Billions may die or become fucked over to the point most of them will wish they were dead. What I think is worth exploring at this point in history, is ways to force engineer that last %, as and when it becomes necessary.

I'm not arguing for or against total transparency. There's no point. It's coming whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing. Until we hit 100% it has the potential to become progressively worse. Near term I'm not optimistic, based on the current state of humanity in general. It's a big change. Humanity needs to change dramatically to accommodate. Humanity, y'know - 7-odd billion retarded primates who fear nothing more than change.

[Junkenstein]

Personal camera(s), GPS that records their position at all times, heart rate monitor, etc. The whole shebang, to be worn at all times while on duty. Provided for free by the federal government through a contract with Apple or something!

Handily enough, examples readily present themselves for discussion in this regard.
Thoughts:
Here we have, again, a police related shooting and questionable circumstances. Shit like this is a massive boost to any argument for requiring cops to be covered in cameras. And it's a pretty strong argument. The tech is portable, of inconsequential cost and data can be stored easily and indefinitely. You'll still get tampering and instances where the device fucks up while you iron out the wrinkles but I would suggest for every fringe case it would easily solve many more. It would surely serve to remove the worst offenders from the job quickly and consistently.

The natural negative to this is it would result in most every interaction with the police being negative or neutral at best.


Another thing I've been thinking about when considering this is how many videos exist of cops freaking out about being filmed in a public place. I wonder how many who react like this would be willing to stay in the job.

I suspect one of the main problems to any push for this (undecided if positive/negative, apparently people have had good experiences with cops. Suspect bullshit. I've just been lucky/smart/unimportant enough to not have been caught, mostly.) will be the various police unions and forces themselves. Annoyingly, we'd probably need more firearm deaths and officer shootings here to stand a remote chance of even getting armed officers with cameras up here, let alone the average copper.


As for the path to total transparency becoming progressively worse, I can't argue that. It certainly seems to have been getting this way for a number of decades and it's increasingly difficult to ignore. It probably feels worse as the imbalance becomes more noticeable. For examples in this regard see Savile and co or how information is released/controlled in the wake of an event. The other thing as well is that you'll never really reach it while the concept of the nation state is kicking around. As long as anyone can claim a security issue as a justification, you'll always have a degree of information control. Add quip about monkeys liking secrets and you're done.


Dictated but not read, because I should dictate more things.

[P3nT4gR4m]

On the plus side, it's not just the cops who can cover themselves in cameras. Pretty soon we'll all be walking around in a cloud of personal drones. The balance of surveillance power swings back and forward but it's nearer the middle now than it's ever been. The bad guys will begin deploying EMP's in riot zones to try and combat this. Someone will start selling cheap Faraday-cage phone cases on ebay to get around it.

The government used to have a comms and tech advantage. That's gone. Playing field is leveled. I've been thinking a lot about what the word "Terrorism" currently means, after years of systematic abuse by the thought police. Best definition I can come up with is "enemy combatant who we can't defeat using our traditional strategy of overwhelming military force"

When tanks and guns aren't effective weapons anymore, all they're left with is information systems. Good luck winning that war would be oppressors - you're outmanned and outgunned. "Cyberterrorists" will win the info-wars and hopefully that will be the end of centralised government.

[Junkenstein]

Note for self when more awake. When was the last time lawyers went on strike? Betting never.

[Reginald Ret]

On the plus side, it's not just the cops who can cover themselves in cameras. Pretty soon we'll all be walking around in a cloud of personal drones. The balance of surveillance power swings back and forward but it's nearer the middle now than it's ever been. The bad guys will begin deploying EMP's in riot zones to try and combat this. Someone will start selling cheap Faraday-cage phone cases on ebay to get around it.

The government used to have a comms and tech advantage. That's gone. Playing field is leveled. I've been thinking a lot about what the word "Terrorism" currently means, after years of systematic abuse by the thought police. Best definition I can come up with is "enemy combatant who we can't defeat using our traditional strategy of overwhelming military force"

When tanks and guns aren't effective weapons anymore, all they're left with is information systems. Good luck winning that war would be oppressors - you're outmanned and outgunned. "Cyberterrorists" will win the info-wars and hopefully that will be the end of centralised government.

They will be illegal to own just like kevlar bodyarmor. "Only terrists and bankrobbers need them"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Note for self when more awake. When was the last time lawyers went on strike? Betting never.

How do you imagine lawyers going on strike would work? They aren't part of a union, they represent a wide diversity of interests, and a great many are self-employed. Who would they go on strike against, and for what purpose?

[Junkenstein]

Note for self when more awake. When was the last time lawyers went on strike? Betting never.

How do you imagine lawyers going on strike would work? They aren't part of a union, they represent a wide diversity of interests, and a great many are self-employed. Who would they go on strike against, and for what purpose?

This is why I was waiting till more awake. I don't imagine lawyers going on strike would work, or is even something the vast amount would consider doing even if it were an option. Lawyers are implicitly dependent on the system of laws they use to make their living and they live very well, on average. While not part of a union, membership/registration with an authority/group is usually required. To a large extent, I see law societies essentially acting as a union in everything but name. You pay dues, you get information, backup and told how to act for the benefit of all members.

I think what I'm getting at is the people in the best position to reform anything for a real positive change have the least incentive around to do so. These are also the people in the best possible position to profit from the various X-to prison pipelines.

Another problem with Lawyers/barristers/solicitors and the Law system is that it adds a human element to proceedings which is incredibly difficult balance and account for. See "famous trial lawyers" in general. Take Cochran for example. There's more than a few cases that could be reasonably said to have been won based on the strength of his personality compared to his counterpart. This essentially reduces the Law system to a popularity contest. Marketing slogans and catchphrases in a different arena. Hardly any way to get actual justice. I'm sure there's plenty of counter examples with charismatic prosecutors too.

I'm not arguing for a removal of the human element from the justice system, but I would argue for some way to balance out the greater excesses of personality and bias. How to do that? Fuck knows.


I'm also starting to suspect that lawyers may eventually try prevent 100% enforcement of various laws. Probably right around the time they understand it would bring an end to the coke and hookers parties.

[Doktor Howl]

Anyone who complains about lawyers and their tricks probably has never needed one.

[Junkenstein]

I've had call to use several over the years and I've resented each and every occasion.

My problems are less with Lawyers and more the whole system of Law and justice as it stands, which is at best a joke and at worst a money making process. The only real questions are about who makes said monies and in what order, and how emerging tech could/should fit into this.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Successful lawyers make good money.

Most lawyers are not successful.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Dunno how accurate the info I had was but there was a figure in a doc I watched that about 80% of legal work was "discovery" which is not talking your ass off in court, winning over the jury but poring over documents, accounts, email and shit like that trying to build a case.

This process (80% of the stuff lawyers do) is about to get automated by deep learning systems which can do the job infinitely faster and an order of magnitude more accurately.

100% of lawyers with 20% stuff left to do should be interesting. I'm not thinking techno unemployment (That's call-center staff and burger chefs) more a case of less backlog. What's going to happen to the legal system once the backlog is reduced by 80%?