I can't believe how great this is! I recently read a similar book, and it was absolutely incredible. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
Now studying security in BUS, these are real contingency strategies. Data is important in the new grid world, less important if your IPR (interest percentage rate) is low. I have been studying behavior for a while, particularly bottlenecks and the ppl behind the anarchy. Your IPR sub credentials ranges from network status, to income status, to intellectual status, family status, to all stature of percentage, and you IPR starts through parental royalties....
thank you. You just answer a question that I had this morning after reading an article in NY magazine about Palantir, it's called Does Palantir See Too Much? and there was a picture of M.Foucault on the wall. I just understand why there was a picture of him there.
The homeless/welfare/social-security/no-load/generation of entitlement is partially due to human evolutionary adaptation to extraordinarily wasteful societies and federally suppressed innovations.
Almost all videos on these topics just assume the value is privacy. The only point raised here is that a loss of privacy may limit your liberty to do things you don't want other to know about. Well there's two problems with that 1) why not attack the social norm that makes the act considered worthy or secrecy or 2) maybe you shouldn't be doing that act! Almost all bad things in the world require privacy too you know. I don't get this Luddite approach to tech.
Oh those pesky societal norms. I get your points but it always looks a bit abstract when it's on the internet. When you take it into the real world it's like in Orwell or Zamjatin books. Imagine that your house was made out of glass and everybody could see inside at all times. It sure increases security but does it feel right or comfortable to you ? Sure we can get rid of the societal norms of being seen doing the most private things, but also why should we ? for bigger security ? Because there is no evidence that bulk surveillance ever helped with real security. It's needle in the haystack aproach vs targeted aproach. There is more of law abiding citizens that want to be private than thief doing shady stuff, hidden. We can't supress the rights of majority just because of smaller group that can potentially do something. Now allow surveillance on somebody that is suspect of an ilegal activity is different aproach. Also imagine that two agents are sitting in front of your house and can see everything and they take notes of everything you do and they create very complex profile about you that can predict your behaviour and they are selling it to anybody interested. You have no control over who gets it, it's not considered personal information because the company made that data themselves and didn't get it from you or got data that is not considered private but is enough to uniquely identify you so arguable it became personal and sensitive but it's not considered as one. If anything like this would happen in reality it would be like even creepier Soviet Russia and KGB spying or something. But on the internet its all more abstract. And i mean sure we can change our societal norms that privacy is dead as Zucc is saying but damn, do you feel we developed those norms really out of nothing out of no psychological need and that this is right ?
