• PierceTheBubble@lemmy.world
    2·
    19 hours ago

    How about not allowing systemic use, of objects equipped with public-facing image sensors (including stationary cameras)? It is beyond worrisome, regulations advocated for, align with those introduced in the US, with regards to: drones, 3D printing, and open-source firmware running them. I’m so sick and tired of the crime and terrorism motive, and the shameless hypocrisy involved: if there’s excessive crime and terrorism, it’s probably the result of systemic failure (the wealth gap and foreign policy). All technology like this does, is suppress the underlying problems, and perpetuate a clearly dysfunctional system, that disproportionately benefits a privileged minority (including those shoveling the technology).

    I don’t need accustomization to, or instruction on such systems; and I’m especially uninterested, in being fear mongered into acceptance. Instead, I’d rather live with the hypothetical, of being struck by a kamikaze drone, than the certainty of government sensors surveilling me (supposedly as a byproduct, for protection against the hypothetical), through: (swarms of) drones (patrolling the skies), high-altitude pseudo-satellites (HAPS), passive acoustic masts (mapping every micro-rotor within a kilometer), microwave point-defense pods (concealed in sidewalk bollards and street lights), Internet of Things (IoT) devices anywhere (from underground areas to cities, rural areas and even oceans), or legally wiretapped devices (possibly “social” robots).

    The following dystopian lines say it all: “satellites, artificial intelligence, open-source intelligence, and real-time surveillance have transformed modern conflict zones into what is now being called the transparent battlefield, and maybe this expression is equally relevant for society in general, the transparent society”; emphasized later by: “the technology will also bring a more transparent operating environment where few things stay hidden”. But “the public must trust law enforcement to use these technologies effectively and accountably”…

    • StopTech@lemmy.todayOP
      2·
      18 hours ago

      Agreed. This technology’s existence is a net negative to humanity, whether everyone has it or just the police have it. It all needs to be stopped, no exceptions for any government agency, research lab, corporation and non-profit organization.

  • Arcanoloth@lemmy.ml
    341·
    14 days ago

    2035? I’d have argued most of these things are already here or at least trivially close…

    no privacy - Corporate overlords have been declaring us “post-privacy” for a looooong-ass time, and Governments and their enforcers have been chomping at the bit for at least as long, because they want in on the game

    robot cops - Palantir Gotham plus semi-autonomous drones; It’s a question of degree, not of when.

    robots displacing workers - Has literally been happening for more than half a century; The current LLM bullshit is going to give it another push, obviously.

    robot rights - Well, are LLM companies just violating copyright or are LLMs simply ordinary artists that learn by looking at other folks art, just like their human forebears? (It doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what we as society ultimately make of that and I wouldn’t be optimistic)

    criminals with hundreds of drones - They’ve been running humongous botnets for decades; If they see a business case for doing something drone-wise in meatspace they’ll absofuckinglutely do so today rather than tomorrow, and maybe they already are and we’re just not aware because it’s still flying under the radar.

    If you aren’t expecting some variation of full-on Cyberpunk right now I honestly don’t know what you’re waiting for…

    • qualia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      14 days ago

      Since they’re law enforcement I interpreted the report as them preparing for the worst possible outcomes given upcoming tech, and then escalating in response to that.

    • Solumbran@lemmy.world
      12·
      14 days ago

      Covid does affect the brain.

      But seriously, people have always been that stupid, it’s just that capitalism and fascism are a race towards the bottom, that speeds up over time.

  • m532@lemmygrad.ml
    91·
    14 days ago

    Surely they’re gonna build a robot police force with no oil, no gallium, and no robot factories.

    I predict a 2035 with no europe.

    (Although I do like the idea of being a criminal commanding hundreds of robots. The republican space cops with their slave armies and idealism magic would hate me. CIS ftw.)

  • timmytbt@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    14 days ago

    I’d like to watch the full length video. The link doesn’t work obviously. Can you point me in the right direction?

  • maplesaga@lemmy.world
    22·
    13 days ago

    Whats the alternative, let China and Russia build up the technology and we stay in the past?

    The US has the largest military because its the reserve currency, they print money and export their inflation and they spend that money on military expenditures, which prevents people from moving off USD.

    This then lets them sanction other countries and control the worlds shipping lanes, so asking them to stop developing their military is asking for the existing global order to cease to exist, and then you’re at the whims of whatever power fills that void.

      • maplesaga@lemmy.world
        2·
        13 days ago

        Having rejected centralised restrictions on technology then, the alternative we are left with is decentralised restriction. This could include boycotts, agreements, social stigma, parallel economies, civil disobedience and more, with the goal of limiting the development, distribution or adoption of anti-human technologies.

        So you require that people just boycott countries like China, stop buying their trinkets and they’ll stop creating doomsday weapons?

        • StopTech@lemmy.todayOP
          1·
          12 days ago

          No. I’m not convinced China is worse than the US in terms of developing anti-human technologies and people living in China can’t boycott China. The point is to get the people in every significant country (including China) to oppose these technologies so strongly that they aren’t able to be developed anywhere. The Chinese military has to employ Chinese people to make its weapons, but if 80% of the population is opposed to these weapons existing and even the foundation of modern technology on which they are built then that is going to be difficult. Even if they were able to only employ those who are fine with WMDs the public’s opposition to modern technology would be a problem for the government maintaining control while developing those weapons and forcing modern technology on the people as a means of controlling them.

      • m532@lemmygrad.ml
        2·
        13 days ago

        This is completely unfeasible. Convincing a bunch of people won’t cut it. For this to work, you’d need to rule the whole world with an iron fist, and then there’d still be secret resistance research labs everywhere.

        • StopTech@lemmy.todayOP
          2·
          12 days ago

          Ruling with an iron fist tends to create resistance and without mass surveillance technology an unpopular regime couldn’t keep everyone in line. But if instead most people are in agreement about something being bad (like they are with slavery or pedophilia) then there is much less resistance to enforcement against it (whether that’s centralized or decentralized enforcement) and therefore that thing is more effectively stopped. While lone individuals or small secretive groups could continue doing the bad practice, in terms of technology I don’t think this will matter much because they won’t be able to develop a lot of technology with only a small group of people who aren’t building on other people’s work and their technology also wouldn’t be adopted by a society that is against it.