112
Palantir CEO Makes Shocking Confession on Disrupting Democratic Power (newrepublic.com)
submitted 7 months ago by [M] to c/technology@beehaw.org
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Democracies require privacy, therefore they are in their most basic mission, anti-democratic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

    That's a good read, thank you for sharing. I do not believe that a lack of privacy and surveillance are a given. You can have a strong Democratic state with surveillance, if you have strong privacy guarantees and the means to enforce them. I'll point to the, for the time, rapidly expanding surveillance state of revolutionary America in the 1770s and 1780s for that, but I admit, this is a much larger discussion, but your article and point are well taken.

    Edit: Update based on additional thoughts and comments below. This reply is to the perspectives and argument offered by /u/euxotic and my response is: "Circling around to say I thought about this over the last four days. In brief, my perspective that you can have a surveillance apparatus and a contemporary democracy in the 21st century were misguided. You are right."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I might be able to agree with you if they hadn't already said that it's basically being misused and I'm talking about the people using it, not some crackpot or tin foil hat person. Also, the case for its necessity and its utility is very flimsy. Looke into snowden. Look into flock cameras. If you can even scratch the surface on those two topics and come back with the same argument... Well, then I just don't know what to do with you. lol

    You can put in whatever safeguard you want, but there will still be people that will misuse it, and they won't get caught. That's what's already been happening with the levels of surveillance that we've already had since 2001, and even more so in 2004 with the Patriot Act.

    In many ways, it's already too late and it has been proven that what we have already has not not been handled responsibly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    That's a fair set of arguments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Thank you.

    I probably could have been a little bit more succinct and just said "past is prologue, QED, you are incorrect."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Circling around to say I thought about this over the last four days. In brief, my perspective that you can have a surveillance apparatus and a contemporary democracy in the 21st century were misguided. You are right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •