Why not make the data public? If data is power, you criminalize the hoarding of data, and require it to be shared openly with all. We would still be headed toward a surveillance state, which comes with a high risk of authoritarianism, but at least we would have a shot at keeping it democratic.
But the point here is that there's data that shouldn't be collected in the first place. And that data, especially biometric data, is what allows data autocrats hack human beings. And you don't need a lot of data to hack a human being. Just enough to know someone better than that person knows himself or herself.
I just don't think that's feasible. The cat cannot be put back in the box (so to speak).
I think the solution goes more in line with open transparency. Yet individual privacy is really important.
The only way through, I think, is to guarantee individual privacy but enforce institutional transparency.
It's not feasible because there's a huge economic logic behind that data collection. While the truth is that most services (even innovation) would still work with a few data points.
I mean, Google Maps doesn’t need to collect all the data it collects, but it sells us the benefit with an imminent long-tail of problems.
If by democratic you mean freedom to form outrage mobs then I'd agree, but I don't think that would be a good thing. Having thousands of people in some community screaming for the head of some kid who said something dumb about his school and his dad's rifle on a Call of Duty discord is not going to end well for the kid.
I'm not sure I believe in completely open data because entire populations with access to it are not completely rational.
certainly not. but we are at the beginning of a cultural shift in line with the renaissance and the age of enlightnement which vastly changed the cultural mindset quite a bit. before these previous 'cultural revolutions' what people considered rational was different.
It's exactly this cultural shift that I'm worried about. What exactly does crowdsourced school security look like in an environment of radically open data?
I just think you're being very optimistic.
regardless, I don't think it's optimism because I don't think I will leave long enough to see such a world, at best we will leave through the roughest part of the shift. this level of cultural transformation takes more tha a few of generations.
in any case, I see something else regarding the way in which individual humans are aware of the relationship to their supporting society which translates up to the way in which a distinct society sees itself as a component of a larger system.
where do you think this is going?
> If by democratic you mean freedom to form outrage mobs then I'd agree, but I don't think that would be a good thing.
I don't think it would be an objectively good thing either. I only think it may be better than the alternative. Given a choice between an authoritarian dictatorship and an authoritarian democracy, I lean toward the latter.
Additionally, I think you may not be giving people enough credit. Devolution of democracy to mob rule is certainly a danger, but I don't know that it's a foregone conclusion. I don't how to go about preserving individual liberty without privacy, but as long as the common man has power it should be possible in theory.
You're fully aware of the danger of what's coming. Just be aware, authoritarian democracy with full open access to the totality of everyone's data is not really authoritarian democracy.
It's totalitarian democracy. Just that small nit pick but other than that, if you know what you're getting into, go for it.
I just disagree with that trade off.