License plate readers, home security cameras, and outsourced data labeling have created a control grid that was approved piecemeal before anyone realized how it would chillingly coagulate against us.
From our Stone Age hunter-gatherer days until … the 19th century modern West(?), or arguably the 20th century modern West, there never was any such thing as anonymity (amongst us non-millionaire workin’ Joe’s).
Not even in city life, not until mid-20th century technologies like the personal automobile + automobile-scaled city living could it be normalized for the Common Man to simply disappear then reinvent himself in the next town over, or the next state over.
Only in the 20th century mass production + automobile socioeconomic system could we mass produce this novel cultural phenomenon of anonymity: highly individualized worker bees, not defined (limited) by church parish, by human scaled (high walk ability score 😂) neighborhoods, by handshakes & eye contact and by Yes, Sir & Yes, Ma’am.
And now that we might be returning to our Mother Natural state of being, we’re freaking out about it 😂 This is a blessing in disguise.
… Like I keep reminding my Henny Penny friends, totalitarianism did just fine for centuries & millennia in the paper ‘n’ pencil days, & in the papyrus ‘n’ clay tablet days too - no computers necessary.
Our protection against totalitarianism is still the US Bill of Rights, i. e. Western Christian Enlightenment egalitarian idealism.
So for me, the end of anonymity is that proverbial second wrong that makes a right. Surveillance makes the world a very small place again, despite the personal automobile, despite hyper-individualistic destruction of marriage, extended family relationships, small town communities/ big city neighborhoods, etc..
Human beings never, ever, ever lived anonymously. It’s Mother Unnatural.
The insidious creep of surveillance is ongoing and terrifying. No matter how they defend it, it will ultimately destroy our ability to adapt and ward off totalitarian control. History has shown repeatedly that those in power will seek to remain in power at the expense of personal freedom and free will for the collective. This new super powerful tool is the way they could entrench their control without having to wipe us all out.
They want god-like power to control the masses, but aren't wise enough, or moral and ethical enough to be in that position. We know they will never be able balance the pros and cons of human evolution and development, like God and Nature would. They are trying to be in control but are too flawed and limited to assume that role.
Nature will assert itself when the time comes. Humans can't thrive and grow if controlled like caged animals. That's my opinion.
The problem is that we have a large population that does not share a moral framework. Outside of your own private spaces, there are other people who have rights as well.
There has to be an agreed upon standard of behavior in public spaces. That means that you have limits on your freedom. That has to be decided collectively, not by everyone's personal interpretation.
As population increases, it also increases the number of people who are unwilling to act within the rules of behavior even if the percentage of miscreants stays the same. The more that they are able to evade any consequences for bad behavior, the more they are emboldened to flout the rules. It spreads to others who would would normally not misbehave on their own volition.
I am all for campaigning against overreaching restrictions and even civil disobedience (assuming you are willing to accept the consequences) if bad rules are established. That doesn't mean that you, in general, only have to follow the rules that you personally approve.
They are pulling back for two reasons. First is the public resistance but I think that is more of an excuse. They certainly don't feel compelled by public sentiment in their choices most times.
I feel that the bigger reason for the pull back is that they are being embarrassed in court when their narrative falls apart due to conflicting evidence.
Look at the January 6 evidence. They wanted to portray all the people at the capital as being a bloodthirsty mob when most of them were actually behaving very meekly. Things like being shepherded through the building by the Capitol Police and having doors opened for them really went against the story they tried to build.
This plays out over and over with things like body cameras. It especially has a lot of comedic impact when they make mistakes like not remembering to turn off the cameras when they do things that get them into trouble.
This is why I have mixed emotions about the surveillance. People behave much differently when they are being watched than they do when they think nobody is looking.
You don't really have an expectation of privacy when in fact you are in a public space. You don't have the right to break the law just because nobody sees it happen. Yes, there are some bad laws but that is a different question.
If this freaks you out, just check out insect drones with cameras.
www.roboticstomorrow.com/article/2016/12/was-that-an-insect-or-a-drone/9265/
Anonymity is novel, and Mother Unnatural.
From our Stone Age hunter-gatherer days until … the 19th century modern West(?), or arguably the 20th century modern West, there never was any such thing as anonymity (amongst us non-millionaire workin’ Joe’s).
Not even in city life, not until mid-20th century technologies like the personal automobile + automobile-scaled city living could it be normalized for the Common Man to simply disappear then reinvent himself in the next town over, or the next state over.
Only in the 20th century mass production + automobile socioeconomic system could we mass produce this novel cultural phenomenon of anonymity: highly individualized worker bees, not defined (limited) by church parish, by human scaled (high walk ability score 😂) neighborhoods, by handshakes & eye contact and by Yes, Sir & Yes, Ma’am.
And now that we might be returning to our Mother Natural state of being, we’re freaking out about it 😂 This is a blessing in disguise.
… Like I keep reminding my Henny Penny friends, totalitarianism did just fine for centuries & millennia in the paper ‘n’ pencil days, & in the papyrus ‘n’ clay tablet days too - no computers necessary.
Our protection against totalitarianism is still the US Bill of Rights, i. e. Western Christian Enlightenment egalitarian idealism.
So for me, the end of anonymity is that proverbial second wrong that makes a right. Surveillance makes the world a very small place again, despite the personal automobile, despite hyper-individualistic destruction of marriage, extended family relationships, small town communities/ big city neighborhoods, etc..
Human beings never, ever, ever lived anonymously. It’s Mother Unnatural.
The insidious creep of surveillance is ongoing and terrifying. No matter how they defend it, it will ultimately destroy our ability to adapt and ward off totalitarian control. History has shown repeatedly that those in power will seek to remain in power at the expense of personal freedom and free will for the collective. This new super powerful tool is the way they could entrench their control without having to wipe us all out.
They want god-like power to control the masses, but aren't wise enough, or moral and ethical enough to be in that position. We know they will never be able balance the pros and cons of human evolution and development, like God and Nature would. They are trying to be in control but are too flawed and limited to assume that role.
Nature will assert itself when the time comes. Humans can't thrive and grow if controlled like caged animals. That's my opinion.
The problem is that we have a large population that does not share a moral framework. Outside of your own private spaces, there are other people who have rights as well.
There has to be an agreed upon standard of behavior in public spaces. That means that you have limits on your freedom. That has to be decided collectively, not by everyone's personal interpretation.
As population increases, it also increases the number of people who are unwilling to act within the rules of behavior even if the percentage of miscreants stays the same. The more that they are able to evade any consequences for bad behavior, the more they are emboldened to flout the rules. It spreads to others who would would normally not misbehave on their own volition.
I am all for campaigning against overreaching restrictions and even civil disobedience (assuming you are willing to accept the consequences) if bad rules are established. That doesn't mean that you, in general, only have to follow the rules that you personally approve.
They are pulling back for two reasons. First is the public resistance but I think that is more of an excuse. They certainly don't feel compelled by public sentiment in their choices most times.
I feel that the bigger reason for the pull back is that they are being embarrassed in court when their narrative falls apart due to conflicting evidence.
Look at the January 6 evidence. They wanted to portray all the people at the capital as being a bloodthirsty mob when most of them were actually behaving very meekly. Things like being shepherded through the building by the Capitol Police and having doors opened for them really went against the story they tried to build.
This plays out over and over with things like body cameras. It especially has a lot of comedic impact when they make mistakes like not remembering to turn off the cameras when they do things that get them into trouble.
This is why I have mixed emotions about the surveillance. People behave much differently when they are being watched than they do when they think nobody is looking.
You don't really have an expectation of privacy when in fact you are in a public space. You don't have the right to break the law just because nobody sees it happen. Yes, there are some bad laws but that is a different question.