fences, security patrols, and intimidating warnings. They could simply replace them with clear signs along the boundary of the event, as anyone attending would be identified and billed directly. People could dash into a shop, grab what they needed, and run out, without having to wait in line or check out. The camera system would have already billed them. Drivers who crashed into parked cars would no longer need to leave a note. They’d be tracked anyway, and insurance companies would have already settled the matter by the time they returned home. Everyday human interactions would be changed in far-reaching ways. Lying and hypocrisy would become practically impossible, and one could no longer project a false image of oneself. In the realm of personal identity, there would be less place for imagination or reinvention, and more place for honesty. Today’s intricate copyright laws could be simplified, and there would be no need for the infantilizing mess of reduced functionality that is “Digital Rights Management.” Surveillance would render DRM completely unnecessary, meaning that anyone who purchased a song could play it anytime, on any machine, while copying it and reusing it to their heart’s content. There would be no point in restricting these uses, because the behavior that copyrights holders object Stuart Armstrong is a research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute in Oxford, where he works on decision theory and the risks of artificial intelligence.
to – passing the music on to others – would be detected and tagged separately. Every time you bought a song, a book, or even a movie, you’d do so knowing that it would be with you wherever you went for the rest of your life. The virtues and vices of surveillance are the imagined virtues and vices of small villages, which tend to be safe and neighborly, but prejudiced and judgmental. With the whole world as the village, we can hope that the multiplicity of cultures and lifestyles would reduce a global surveillance culture’s built-in Lying and hypocrisy would become practically impossible, and one could no longer project a false image of oneself. potential for prejudice and judgment. With people more trusting, and less fearful, of each other, we could become more willing to help out, more willing to take part in common projects, more pro-social and more considerate. Yes, these potential benefits aren’t the whole story on mass surveillance, and I would never argue that they outweigh the potential downsides. But if we’re headed into a future panopticon, we’d better brush up on the possible upsides. Because governments might not bestow these benefits willingly – we will have to make sure to demand them.
This essay was originally published in Aeon.
50 March 2018
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker