The world we live in has been tightly and inextricably integrated with information technologies. The Internet has become a part of our daily lives, spanning the world with a huge net which can track our every move by monitoring which wireless network our phones exchange handshakes with, track us using facial recognition technology and omnipresent CCTV cameras, and soon using our DNA. These technologies are developed by private companies, owing no loyalty to a country or a cause, sold to the highest bidder regardless of who they are and what they use it for. How big of a threat to our privacy and safety does this constitute?
Questions:
1. Do you think that surveilance technology is a type of weapon?
2. Should the export of surveilance technology be regulated by countries like the US?
3. Do you think it's dangerous that this kind of technology is currently owned and developed mainly by private corporations?
4. Do you think surveilance technologies have positive uses?
Comments
2. US will be able to regulate only its own export. What a strange question.
3. Any corporation protects its technology by every mean available. If public company would've developed similar kind of technology, you think that this information would go public? Nonsense.
4. Of course they have positive uses. Do you consider traffic cameras to be kind of surveillance? They stop retards from dangerous driving.
2. I'm a fan of the "you can own, watch how you use" approach. It is not the hammer's creator fault that an uncontrolled madman hit someone on the head with it. A hammer is still a great tool that can be used for many other things. Likewise, all intelligence tools that can be used on civilians inside the country and can also be used to defend them against a potential threat from outside the country.
3. Identical moral dilemmas were raised about companies producing conventional weapons in the USA in the years 2000-2010. Rifles, guns, ammunition and rockets used in the Middle East by the United States. Numerous regulations have finally stabilized the amount of weapons hitting the black market, and that is no longer a big problem. Identical regulations should be imposed on spyware.
4. As I said before, each tool can find a good application that will not be controversial or harmful. National defense and counterintelligence is not about tracking your citizens, but keeping them safe.
2. Definetly not! If there's only one entity responsible for global surveillance, there is no way to even check if it's not being overused. Right now, ther are often scandals connected to surveillance/espionage. THe only reason why they get to be uncovered is because more entities are in possesion of surveillance technology.
3. Yes. Private corporations may use their tech to unlawfull purposes. Of course, they should abide the law but it's hard to detect any misuse.
4. Last question is hard one. If used right, surveillance might increase our safety. Although misuse of that technology is huge invasion of privacy and in borderline cases, it can be used as an weapon and endanger us all.
2. Even if we do that, the technologies like that won't be sold legally. Let's be honest - which country would publicly say that "hey, we bought some nasty technology that will spy on us, that's great!". This all will happen on the dark market all the time, and the people who are creating such technologies won't be caught on selling simply because they have not many customers and if they know how to spy, they also know how to hide.
3. From what Edward Snowden already leaked, we know that the government can also develop a surveillance technology without people agreeing on that. It doesn't matter here.
4. No, I don't think there are any positives in stalking on people. Let's take an example from Poland: we all had to register our SIM cards so that "the terrorist attacks won't take place". And now think of how many terrorists have we caught using this technology. Zero. Of course, nobody will think of a way to back this up and let people de-register from this system even though the system is completely ineffective.
As a matter of fact, surveillance is already commonly used all over the world.
Certainly, it's quite difficult to know the full extent of tools intelligence agencies employ.
I don't think regulation would change anything.
As my trusted example I always use prohibition of alcohol, but it is enough to look around. :)
Pursuit after users that use tech against the law is costly and entails a lot of collateral damage, so I would refrain forces to intervene only in extreme cases.
And by extreme I mean gangs and especially vile individuals.
I don't think that it is dangerous that private company develops and uses it's technology.
Even if it is abuse, free market resolves those problems with competition and anti-products (such as anti-spyware software and hardware).
It may be strange, looking at recent events of big tech abusing their position to shut someone down, completely.
But the free market eventually responded with diminished stock values, so that actions were reversed.
I believe that any tech, can be used in positive ways.
Even if we fail to see it sometimes, let's not forget about smart people that turn trash into gold. :)
Surveillance might be controversial, but has it's uses, for instance keeping objects or people safe.
2. Each country should regulate its export if it wants to do that.
3. Well, sounds dangerous, yeah? But if instead of private corporations there was "governments", the sentence would also sound like an anti-utopia. So who should develop it? Universities? But who will give them money for it? Someone who has it. Private corporations or governments. Yeah, the world isn't as a nice place, as we want it to be.
4. Of course, in good hands for good purposes as any technology it can be good. Prevent crimes, help with fires or medical incidents and so on and so forth.
2. I believe that there should be global regulations. One or two countries shouldn't be imposing rules on such a dangerous technology. Rules should be formulated for all countries in the world.
3. I am personally concerned about this topic. I find it extremely dangerous. It's hard to say what will happen next if it's the same all the time. Private companies have too much influence on our privacy. It needs to be regulated as soon as possible.
4. Initially, you could have such an impression. Reacting quickly when a crime occurs sounds very cool. But it doesn't look that way anymore. Everyone is monitored at every step. This is sick
For sue it can be used as one. It can be used to spy on people including normal citizens and “bad” people among them also. By bad people I mean thiefs, burglars, terrorists and so on, in this situation surveillance can be used as a weapon to fight them in court or to scare them away.
2. Should the export of surveilance technology be regulated by countries like the US?
Yes, I think it should be regulated. If it will not be regulated there can be many data leaks or unproper surveillance materials being sold.
3. Do you think it's dangerous that this kind of technology is currently owned and developed mainly by private corporations?
In my opinion it has it perks and downside. E.g. feeling safe on the street or in a shop is a price we pay for being watched all the time.
4. Do you think surveilance technologies have positive uses?
Of course, as I mentioned before it is has very positive use in fighting crime and preventing it. I can also be used as a source of truth e.g. in a road accident when both drivers claimed it was not their fault.
In itself and by design? No. It can however be used as a weapon and a very effective one at that. Knowing everything about everyone is a very powerful information, especially since in many cases anonymity might be your only real protection.
2. Should the export of surveilance technology be regulated by countries like the US?
I think surveilance technology in general should be regulated, let alone export of it. It is both a very crucial area of our security, making sure nothing suspicious or dangerous is happening in our neighbourhood but also it takes away your anonymity which, in itself, is a valid right. On one hand you want somebody to be able to react quickly on the other hand you don't want anyone spying on you while you take a walk. In my opinion there is no good middle ground between the two.
3. Do you think it's dangerous that this kind of technology is currently owned and developed mainly by private corporations?
I think it's less dangerous than if it'd have been developed only by the government. It still needs to be regulated, but this way there is no singular entity both in control of surveilance technology and legislation directly affecting it.
4. Do you think surveilance technologies have positive uses?
Most certainly, they can identify dangerous criminals on the streets such as e.g. murderers or ,in less extreme cases, for example give you a live info about traffic on the streets
I think that it can be seen as a weapon if you use it against someone. This kind of information can be used against us because it gathers almost all information about our life. It means that it disturbs our privacy, which is against basic human rights.
2. Should the export of surveilance technology be regulated by countries like the US?
Yes, it should be controlled. I think that there might be a lot of people with bad intentions, who would try to use it in the wrong way, so generally, it should be restricted. For example, there is a big problem in Korea, because of the misuse of small, spy cameras.
3. Do you think it's dangerous that this kind of technology is currently owned and developed mainly by private corporations?
I'm not sure, but the advantage that I can think of is being able to buy it to protect yourself. So that you can buy some surveillance cameras and set them around your home, to make sure that there isn't anything suspicious around there.
4. Do you think surveilance technologies have positive uses?
Of course. You can use it to protect yourself and your home or to monitor cities if there's any dangerous situation, for example robbery, or any type of crime.
I don't consider surveillance technology as a weapon because I think a weapon is something that can be used to harm you directly but surveillance technology cannot directly cause harm but can be used by someone who wants to harm you. Surveillance technology facilitates the tracking and identifying but it in itself doesn't harm.
2. Should the export of surveillance technology be regulated by countries like the US?
I believe it needs to be regulated in a way but I don't know if the US is the best option. I think this technology should be used only for security purposes and by trusted organizations.
3. Do you think it's dangerous that this kind of technology is currently owned and developed mainly by private corporations?
It the main problem because private corporations are they to make money. and this is a risk to end up this the wrong hands.
4. Do you think surveillance technologies have positive uses?
Yes, but the risk is too high for negative uses.
wordpress
blogspot
youtube
ចាក់បាល់