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.
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?
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.
QuoteOur 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.
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. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Emo Howard on August 20, 2014, 09:09:48 AM
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.
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.
Note for self when more awake. When was the last time lawyers went on strike? Betting never.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2014, 11:20:19 AM
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"
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 28, 2014, 11:23:38 PM
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?
Quote from: Doktor Skinsaw on September 29, 2014, 04:16:58 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on September 28, 2014, 11:23:38 PM
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.
Anyone who complains about lawyers and their tricks probably has never needed one.
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.
Successful lawyers make good money.
Most lawyers are not successful.
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%?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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.
:cn:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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%?
The lawyers will lobby for even more laws. Many of them will instead go into politics.
America: Shoot a programmer today.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 30, 2014, 01:42:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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.
:cn:
Like I said, I'm not sure if that 80% thing is accurate. The e-discovery thing is tried and tested database software that's now getting hooked into cognitive systems Like IBM Watson (http://prismlegal.com/impact-ibms-watson-ediscovery/)
If you haven't heard of Cognitive yet then here's my tip - It's going to make the information revolution of the last four or five decades look like nothing significant really happened during that period.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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%?
The lawyers will lobby for even more laws. Many of them will instead go into politics.
America: Shoot a programmer today.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the School to Prison Pipeline you guys have going on over there. You could be approaching "peak-prison" where you can't build them fast enough. What happens then? Escape from New York?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 02:25:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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%?
The lawyers will lobby for even more laws. Many of them will instead go into politics.
America: Shoot a programmer today.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the School to Prison Pipeline you guys have going on over there. You could be approaching "peak-prison" where you can't build them fast enough. What happens then? Escape from New York?
We joke about guard towers along the coast. Nobody really thinks it's funny, though.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 02:25:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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%?
The lawyers will lobby for even more laws. Many of them will instead go into politics.
America: Shoot a programmer today.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the School to Prison Pipeline you guys have going on over there. You could be approaching "peak-prison" where you can't build them fast enough. What happens then? Escape from New York?
That trend has slowed down, with the consequence that prisons are emptying out and the private prison industry is in deep financial trouble.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on September 30, 2014, 03:12:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 02:25:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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%?
The lawyers will lobby for even more laws. Many of them will instead go into politics.
America: Shoot a programmer today.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the School to Prison Pipeline you guys have going on over there. You could be approaching "peak-prison" where you can't build them fast enough. What happens then? Escape from New York?
That trend has slowed down, with the consequence that prisons are emptying out and the private prison industry is in deep financial trouble.
This sounds lovely. Maybe then we could run prisons Oz-style.
...not that TV show. I mean OZ.
Quote from: The Patchwork Girl of Oz"We consider a prisoner unfortunate. He is unfortunate in two ways — because he has done something wrong and because he is deprived of his liberty. Therefore we should treat him kindly, because of his misfortune, for otherwise he would become hard and bitter and would not be sorry he had done wrong. Ozma thinks that one who has committed a fault did so because he was not strong and brave; therefore she puts him in prison to make him strong and brave. When that is accomplished he is no longer a prisoner, but a good and loyal citizen and everyone is glad that he is now strong enough to resist doing wrong. You see, it is kindness that makes one strong and brave; and so we are kind to our prisoners."
But then, I'm relentlessly idealistic when I'm not relentlessly cynical.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on October 28, 2014, 11:43:57 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on September 30, 2014, 03:12:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 02:25:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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%?
The lawyers will lobby for even more laws. Many of them will instead go into politics.
America: Shoot a programmer today.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the School to Prison Pipeline you guys have going on over there. You could be approaching "peak-prison" where you can't build them fast enough. What happens then? Escape from New York?
That trend has slowed down, with the consequence that prisons are emptying out and the private prison industry is in deep financial trouble.
This sounds lovely. Maybe then we could run prisons Oz-style.
...not that TV show. I mean OZ.
Quote from: The Patchwork Girl of Oz"We consider a prisoner unfortunate. He is unfortunate in two ways — because he has done something wrong and because he is deprived of his liberty. Therefore we should treat him kindly, because of his misfortune, for otherwise he would become hard and bitter and would not be sorry he had done wrong. Ozma thinks that one who has committed a fault did so because he was not strong and brave; therefore she puts him in prison to make him strong and brave. When that is accomplished he is no longer a prisoner, but a good and loyal citizen and everyone is glad that he is now strong enough to resist doing wrong. You see, it is kindness that makes one strong and brave; and so we are kind to our prisoners."
But then, I'm relentlessly idealistic when I'm not relentlessly cynical.
That would be very nice, but it would require people to consider long-term systemic consequences and not merely the hollow satisfaction of punishment.
However, speaking of punishment, maybe people who commit crimes should be forced to watch endless episodes of Dr. Oz.
I'm pretty sure that's banned under the Geneva Convention.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 29, 2014, 11:14:30 AM
I'm pretty sure that's banned under the Geneva Convention.
It is pretty inhumane. I'm not sure what I was thinking there, I must have had a momentary lapse in human decency.
Speaking of emptying prisons:
The dutch prisons are so ridiculously empty that several have closed already and we are now importing Norwegian prisoners.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-norway-to-rent-dutch-prisons-to-cut-convict-queue-2014-9
QuoteThe Netherlands' prison population stood at 11,160 at the end of 2012, and has been falling continuously since 2008, according to the Dutch prison service.
That is about 66 per 100 000 and dropping, it seems to me that this plan should work fine, the prison systems are very similar.
I think it would be fair to say that being in Dutch (or Norwegian) prison is like living with your mom. In theory it is nice to have everything taken care of but in practice you just want to GET OUT. It has the added benefit of a long-term improvement in the relationship with the authority figure.
Rehabilitation Through Smothering, it works!
I got this hilarious image stuck in my head of a bad ass long-term criminal whining "But mom! I don't want to go to bed! I wanna read my comics!" "And the warden saying "No. You need your sleep and that is final. And turn your playstation off as well!" "But mom! I haven't saved the game yet!" etc. etc.
Actual rehabilitation instead of just punishment? And it's WORKING???
Go figure.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 29, 2014, 10:47:19 PM
Actual rehabilitation instead of just punishment? And it's WORKING???
Go figure.
Soft on crime.
Quote from: Ragret on September 29, 2014, 02:11:09 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 21, 2014, 11:20:19 AM
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"
They already exist and from what I'm seeing, they look to be just double-thick ESD bags. Fairly cheap too...5-15 dollars depending on retailer.
As for body armour, that lies in a sticky ground too. Sure, kevlar and ceramics may not be aquirable by certain peoples, but steel armour is quite viable, and many companies (example: AR500) sell "anti-spalling steel targets" that conveniently fit in a plate carrier and also happen to be tested to NIJ level III.
So it comes down to how to even make faraday cage bags or body armour illegal...I mean, when does an ESD bag used to ship PC components become a "terrorist anti-EMP device", or when does a piece of sheet metal with a zamak coating become "body armour"?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2014, 11:48:03 PM
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. :kingmeh:
Total, two-way transparency will, in my opinion, require sousveillance...which means that those retarded primates will not acheive full two-way transparency for centuries. It's a voluntary, logical process...just like quitting smoking, or running a home aquaponics system for self sustaining food supplies, or using email run through a home email server to communicate rather than social media. In other words, shit that's too complex for the general population of retarded primates.
I would hazard that it will remain one-way
surveillance for a long time on the grand scale...at least past our own lifetimes. That's grim...
QuoteSo it comes down to how to even make faraday cage bags or body armour illegal...I mean, when does an ESD bag used to ship PC components become a "terrorist anti-EMP device", or when does a piece of sheet metal with a zamak coating become "body armour"?
When it is expedient, or convenient, or hells even just amusing to those in control of the system. For reference here, look at the shitstorm related to 3d printed guns.
Any freedom or privilege you enjoy by law today can disappear by law tomorrow.And it doesn't even take that much really to provoke that change.
There's more to add here, particularly in relation to "open carry" bullshit. I've been thinking about those guys recently and I'm increasingly suspecting that what these assholes want is just to provoke a gunfight by their presence (Scaring someone enough, pissing of the wrong cop,whatever.) as an excuse to unload in a public place. Or they may be a westboro baptist situation and are actually proving the point for gun control advocates just by wandering around.
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 30, 2014, 10:51:09 PM
QuoteSo it comes down to how to even make faraday cage bags or body armour illegal...I mean, when does an ESD bag used to ship PC components become a "terrorist anti-EMP device", or when does a piece of sheet metal with a zamak coating become "body armour"?
When it is expedient, or convenient, or hells even just amusing to those in control of the system. For reference here, look at the shitstorm related to 3d printed guns.
Any freedom or privilege you enjoy by law today can disappear by law tomorrow.
And it doesn't even take that much really to provoke that change.
There's more to add here, particularly in relation to "open carry" bullshit. I've been thinking about those guys recently and I'm increasingly suspecting that what these assholes want is just to provoke a gunfight by their presence (Scaring someone enough, pissing of the wrong cop,whatever.) as an excuse to unload in a public place. Or they may be a westboro baptist situation and are actually proving the point for gun control advocates just by wandering around.
God, don't even get me started on those fucking morons who open carry long arms...especially the double-retarded ones who do it for "protest". I mean jesus fucking christ, I can see carrying a long arm when one is out deep in the woods, or cased on the way to the range, but bringing a rifle or shotgun to bear on an assailant in public is too fucking slow for effective self defense.
Anyway, I think my prior point was mainly, how do you legislate banning basic materials? I mean, I can see illegalising
using a piece of sheet metal as armour, or using an ESD bag as an anti-emp device. But simply illegalising the materials themselves? I can't think of how you'd do it...it'd be like illegalising plumbing parts in order to curb home made submachine guns.
Oh there's other potentially more profitable ways than just making X illegal.
For example, you can restrict, license and tax the everloving shit out of it. You could treat X in the same manner you treat say, meth precurors and prosecute and feed the prison system accordingly there.
Anything you can legally purchase today, can be illegal to purchase tomorrow, By law. Take the UK talking today about banning "All legal highs". Seriously. This is the level we're working with over here with drug legislation. What the hell is this supposed to cover exactly? Well, nearly anything and everything to a canny copper. In the meanwhile you've created swathes of criminals to be caught and punished as law dictates.
Quote from: Junkenstein on October 30, 2014, 11:16:48 PM
Oh there's other potentially more profitable ways than just making X illegal.
For example, you can restrict, license and tax the everloving shit out of it. You could treat X in the same manner you treat say, meth precurors and prosecute and feed the prison system accordingly there.
Anything you can legally purchase today, can be illegal to purchase tomorrow, By law. Take the UK talking today about banning "All legal highs". Seriously. This is the level we're working with over here with drug legislation. What the hell is this supposed to cover exactly? Well, nearly anything and everything to a canny copper. In the meanwhile you've created swathes of criminals to be caught and punished as law dictates.
NO MORE TEA!
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 12, 2014, 07:31:27 PM
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.
(Im replying to OP before reading other's responses as to not get tainted by your opinions :fnord:)
Rather than thinking in terms of "Innocent until proven guilty." i think its more efficient and coherent to think of terms of "Innocent until you are proven economically viable to be prosecuted.". What does this mean?
Theres a bridge between Laws and Prosecution called Enforcement, and Enforcement is constrained by Efficiency and Manpower which are a basic equation that gives you Cost-Efficiency.
Traffic tickets are done either by automated cameras at stoplights (which generates FREE pillaging the citizens other than the initial costs of infrastructure and repairs) or say, speed traps at the bottom of hills; the latter poses a problem, in which it involves the time and attention of an officer which has a salary, so the commitment of said officer to given bottom-of-hill must be Cost-Efficient to have surplus value from the salary that is paid to the officer.
Why do rich people get off of jail time? (other than race issues, etc) Its because they can demonstrate to the Prosecution thru expensive lawyers that they generate more revenue OUTSIDE of jail than INSIDE jail... OUTSIDE of jail they generate revenue thru taxes, while INSIDE prison they only generate revenue thru proxy, thru the formal contracts of prison operators which pillage taxes. So the expenditures in court are merely a demonstration of how you will generate revenue to the system, thru your taxes or thru proxy.
Maybe i could ramble on and on, but i think my basic argument has come across, what do you guys think?
And after reading thread, my thinking is that technology will and can augment the Cost-Efficiency of Enforcement, so things that are hard to prosecute will be made easier to do so; get ready to pay a littering fine for spitting bubblegum on the pavement.
Just wanted to note that I miss Johnny. He came out with a lot of good stuff.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2014, 03:12:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 02:25:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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%?
The lawyers will lobby for even more laws. Many of them will instead go into politics.
America: Shoot a programmer today.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the School to Prison Pipeline you guys have going on over there. You could be approaching "peak-prison" where you can't build them fast enough. What happens then? Escape from New York?
That trend has slowed down, with the consequence that prisons are emptying out and the private prison industry is in deep financial trouble.
But not deep enough. Anything short of the total ruination of the industry and its investors is unacceptable.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 16, 2014, 08:59:10 AM
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.
Laws have, in the beginning, sprouted from the need of respect among people. Most laws have their origins in various religious texts such as the commandments. :fnord:
But Laws are only useful in a society where the majority of people are solipsistic, only thinking of their own good above all others. Our "society" is based on working for others to get the means to live, it is
based off intimidation and violence, even if that violence is bound and enabled by laws.
We (almost) all work at the figurative gunpoint of our job contracts.
So it is normal that in such a society, exploitation is the norm rather than the deviation, and that people have to be bound by laws to disable them from exploiting in "non-default", "antisocietal" ways.
But people who exploit in the "default", "societal" ways are given means to live better, and a lot more love. Those people, in turn, made laws to force people to exploit or be exploited, calling that enforcement "order", and calling alternatives to "order" "chaos" and making them illegal.
Enhancing "justice" with technology is just giving and will be giving an even more and more unfair "edge", helping "legal" exploiters. And it will make the change to a new, altruistic society that much difficult.
In as society where people are altruistic and have to trust each other to get the fullest experience of life, rules made to limit people from lacking respect amongst themselves become irrelevant, as exploitation itself becomes a deviation.
Exploiters would be shunned upon, would be given a lesser share of love, therefore getting a worse life experience. Therefore they would revert back to less exploitative ways by themselves, without the needs for violence in the name of "justice" or "order", nor the need to shun chaos...
Quote from: Reginald RetI think it would be fair to say that being in Dutch (or Norwegian) prison is like living with your mom. In theory it is nice to have everything taken care of but in practice you just want to GET OUT. It has the added benefit of a long-term improvement in the relationship with the authority figure. Rehabilitation Through Smothering, it works!
I got this hilarious image stuck in my head of a bad ass long-term criminal whining "But mom! I don't want to go to bed! I wanna read my comics!" "And the warden saying "No. You need your sleep and that is final. And turn your playstation off as well!" "But mom! I haven't saved the game yet!" etc. etc.
...as as Gandhi said, the power of love is a thousand times stronger than the power of fear and intimidation. 8)
Quote from: LMNO on September 30, 2014, 01:42:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2014, 01:34:09 PM
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.
:cn:
Interestingly, this has actually come to pass to a degree. There's a few Legal AI-assistants on the market now designed to pour over old case histories and precedents and supply an (apparently) easy to read version for a solicitor on the go.
I can reasonably see this extending to various Law enforcement agencies without much effort. It'll be more fun to watch when it starts to get state useage and involved in prosecutions. If any law system essentially comes down to competing prosecution/defence AI's then legal shennanagins look very different.
And that's not even starting to think about hacking/malware/errors in code/programming etc. etc.
ETA - http://www.techinsider.io/the-worlds-first-artificially-intelligent-lawyer-gets-hired-2016-5
QuoteAsk ROSS to look up an obscure court ruling from 13 years ago, and ROSS will not only search for the case in an instant — without contest or complaint — but it'll offer opinions in plain language about the old ruling's relevance to the case at hand.