Way back when villages and towns were hella smaller, unapproved behavior was nipped on the bud, because people talk and there were less people that you just couldn't disappear into the masses. There were _actual_ real social consequences.
_Technically_ we're just moving back to basics, but the social consequences of the increased awareness should apply to everyone – equally.
She would go to a nursing home with a gentleman from the same town, whose wife had come down with Alzheimer's to the point the wife could not recognize her husband most days and would become highly agitated. The wife did recognize the 95 year old woman, with whom the wife had gone to church for many years. The husband would sit in the other room whilst the 95 year old and his wife talked, and share in what lucid moments the woman he loved (his wife) had left.
The other ladies in the church, on the other hand, found the 95 year old widow's behavior highly scandalous, despite the fact the widow had had no one else in her life, even after her husband passed more than 20 years ago.
Point being, don't romanticize small town life. It can, in it's own way lead to collective psychological pathologies just as rapidly as urban living does. The difference being that there's no such thing as "community therapy" to get an entire village turned around. Religion is about the closest there is, and ecumenical politics is about as bad as academic politics in it's toxicity. People are hell, and we do ourselves a favor by not making it any easier for anyone to constantly keep tabs on anyone.
However, I will admit to a bit of schadenfreude that a tech company executive got caught out by this sort of thing.
garciasn•6mo ago
JohnFen•6mo ago
I disagree. This is totally an example of how we're living in a surveillance state. A relatively minor example, sure, but it's part and parcel of the fact that it's impossible to exist in public (and difficult to exist in private) without actively being under surveillance.
If that's not a surveillance state, I don't know what is.
jpc0•6mo ago
Being out in public has never been a privacy violation, only an anonymity one and who ever guaranteed your anonymity?
singleshot_•6mo ago
I live twenty two hundred miles from Bob and Julie but I know exactly who they are, where they work, and why everyone in America thinks they are bad people.
I am concerned but not surprised that this distinction could escape a person.
garciasn•6mo ago
Frankly; this is exactly what happened here. Do you feel there was a 'surveillance state' in the 1880s? I don't.
singleshot_•6mo ago
So no, I don’t feel like there was a surveillance state in the nineteenth century for what must now must feel like a collection of the most obvious reasons ever collected in one post.
jpc0•6mo ago
These are effects of a connected society, I’m unsure on whether they are a net good socially but technologically and economically they have been a game changer.
This has nothing to do with a surveillance state, it might enable it but it enables it in the same way any technology enables the ability to abuse said technology.
The “state” didn’t publish or share the photos.
The things you should be complaining about is the state passing laws to get arbitrary access to the cellphone location data of every single person at this event, and being able to link that data to an individual. That is a loss of anonymity that can be a vector to prosecution and you should fight about, and has nothing to do with the information.
And yes and 5/13 eyes country can and will get that information if they so desire and will likely even share it amongst each other and the public would not need to be any wiser.
If you are on the “state”’s radar they can absolutely track you to within a few meters across international borders. Technology enabled this, “the people” allowed it. A coldplay concert exposing an affair is unrelated.
singleshot_•6mo ago
My claim: there was not a surveillance state in the 1880s, because it was impossible, because they were missing the entirety of the surveillance apparatus. Now that apparatus is omnipresent.
Did you think I thought coldplay was the government? It's clear you understand what the surveillance state is and that we are in one -- you even suggest that I should fight it (I do).
The coldplay event does have something to do with state surveillance: it relied on all the same infrastructure.
jpc0•6mo ago
For you neighbour sleeping with a coworker you likely have no idea unless you know who he/she is (good on you if you do, you are a dying breed) and the news would not give a damn.
Your anonymity isn’t in question here, as the CEO of a company you gave up any right to anonymity and getting caught in public with your mistress was a failure in exposure not a failure of the state to protect your privacy.
If this was footage from a concert that happen to catch something happening in the CEOs back yard or living room 100% there would be a lawsuit because that would be the invasion of privacy you think it is, the news would likely still run with the story.
singleshot_•6mo ago
JohnFen•6mo ago
But understand, I'm not talking about whether or not there's a "privacy violation". I'm talking about being forced to live in a society where you're always under surveillance and so can never really be free.
ncruces•6mo ago
Could've been 20 years ago in a concert and they bump into someone who knows them while hugging.
So what's different here? That people on the internet where “quickly” able to figure out who they are because it went viral?
I'm sure randomly getting caught on national TV 20 years ago could have had the same effect. All it takes is one person to know them.
NicuCalcea•6mo ago
JohnFen•6mo ago
NicuCalcea•6mo ago
JohnFen•6mo ago
NicuCalcea•6mo ago
MoonGhost•6mo ago
If it is a surveillance then street photography is too. Camera pointing at spectators isn't good either...
JohnFen•6mo ago
Barrin92•6mo ago
It absolutely has. This is what real everyday surveillance is that shapes people's behavior. When you cannot go anywhere without in your head thinking "am I on a camera or a microphone?" you're in a surveillance society. It's significantly more insidious and pervasive than any public camera is.
I recently talked with a friend about the fact that you don't see people going skinny dipping any more as we did when we were teenagers spending a day at a lake, and it's pretty obvious why. Smartphone cameras, everyone says they're afraid that someone takes an unflattering picture and shares it with the entire internet. That's how you breed a nation of neurotic people. This wasn't possible a few decades ago or at least not practical.
Every single spot with an internet connection has effectively become a stage where the slightest mishap can turn you into a joke in front of an infinitely large audience. It is no surprise that the mental state of young people is what it is and why they're anxious about the most everyday things. It's literally the logic of the Panopticon, you're going to police yourself harder than anyone externally ever could.
tpmoney•6mo ago
I’ve heard discussion around this idea that used “panopticon” as the descriptor. An all seeng eye that might or might not be looking at you right now, but since you can never know, you’re better off not doing anything the eye’s controllers disapprove of.
UltraSane•6mo ago
Not too long ago they would have been publicly shamed.
bdangubic•6mo ago